Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Troops (Marching on Highway)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the present practice by which, when required to move from one point to another in busy towns, small parties of up to three soldiers are marched in single file along the highway under command of a non-commissioned officer; that this practice involves shouting orders, which is a nuisance to motorists, does not enhance the prestige of the Army nor encourage recruitment and whether he will therefore give orders that in such cases soldiers are to use the footpaths in the same way as civilians.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): It has always been the practice for troops to march whilst on duty and they cannot usually do this on the pavement. I do not see that shouting orders need be a nuisance to motorists.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister really saying that when, in a town like Woolwich, one or two soldiers have to go to another part of the town for a medical examination it is necessary to put another soldier in charge of them and to march them through the streets, which is a nuisance, I can assure him, to the public generally and to motorists? Will the right hon. Gentleman not go and have a look at the ludicrous situation that is created, which does not enhance the prestige of the Army?

Mr. Head: It is very often not one or two but four, five or six, and our experience is that much the best way of getting soldiers to go a short distance is to march them and that a lot of time would be wasted if they went there under

their own steam and were late. We are trying to get people through the streets as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that I have had a letter from his Under-Secretary of State which states that from one to three are marched in single file and when there are four to six they are marched in double file? Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that this practice does not apply to one man when the Under-Secretary mentions from one to three?

Mr. Head: I did not say that it does not apply to one man, but one man with a corporal is not likely to produce a traffic jam or frighten motorists.

Air Compressor Machines

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War how many air compressor machines were offered for sale at Donnington on 27th February; the total purchase price; how many were sold at the auction; how the price realised per machine compares with the cost price; for what purpose the machines were purchased; and how they have been utilised.

Mr. Head: None, Sir.

Mr. Dodds: Can the Minister deny that since January, 1955, 1,100,000 gallons of paint have been taken into stock by his Department?

Hon. Members: Wrong Question.

Mr. Dodds: I am sorry.

Military Tattoo, Bermuda

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for War the estimated cost of the Military Tattoo to be held in Bermuda from 17th to 21st April, 1956.

Mr. Head: The Government of Bermuda are organising this Tattoo and will meet the expenses of any British troops taking part. No charge will fall on Army funds.

National Service Men (Maintenance Cost)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War the present weekly cost of maintaining a National Service man in this country and overseas, respectively.

Mr. Head: On average £6 8s. 0d. and £9 10s. 0d. respectively.

Mr. Yates: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that those figures are lower than those which he gave two years ago? How does it come about that it now takes less to maintain a National Service man? In any case, is the cost not more than it costs to maintain a technological student, and would it not be a good thing to reduce this expenditure?

Mr. Head: That opens up the whole question of Her Majesty's Government's policy on defence and defence overseas, which scarcely arises on a supplementary question to this Question.

N.A.A.F.I. Prices, Cyprus

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the discontent among soldiers serving in Cyprus due to the high charges for essentials and for luxuries in the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes; and what steps he has taken.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for War what complaints he has received about Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' prices to British troops in Cyprus; and what action he now proposes to take.

Mr. Head: During the last six months only two complaints have come to my notice. Some items, particularly chocolate and sweets, are dearer in Cyprus than at home because of freight charges and a 40 per cent. import duty, but others are much cheaper. A local overseas allowance is paid to compensate for higher prices.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister not aware that there has been considerable publicity in the Press to the effect that our troops are dissatisfied over this matter? Can he give a categorical assurance that these allegations are baseless, and that the troops are quite satisfied with present charges?

Mr. Head: I know the British Army well enough to know that it always complains about N.A.A.F.I. prices. I also saw the article, which I think was in the News Chronicle. It said that a bar of chocolate, which I call a slab, costs 11d., and a bottle of beer 1s., but it omitted to say that it was a quart bottle and that cigarettes cost 1s. for twenty. I admit

that certain prices are higher in Cyprus because of local import duties, but the local overseas allowance is worked out to cover those charges.

Coal Buckets, Chelsea Barracks

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War why the paint was removed from coal buckets at Chelsea Barracks so that they could be varnished instead.

Mr. Head: This has certainly not happened since the present battalion has been at Chelsea Barracks, and I can find no earlier evidence about it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If, as appears to be the case, the keeping of buckets clean and unscratched is a major problem, could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to see that coal is delivered to Army establishments by the National Coal Board in little cellophane packets?

Mr. Head: At first sight the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman sounds impracticable. I would say that, so far as I am able to find out, the practice complained of has not happened in the past.

Sir T. Moore: Could my right hon. Friend elicit from the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) the reason for these continual gibes against the Army which, after all, gave him the title which he seems to like to use?

Mr. Head: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for eliciting information from the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).

Paint Stocks and Orders

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the substantial stocks of paint sold as surplus from his Department, what is the purpose of placing orders for 1,100,000 gallons during the past twelve months.

Mr. Head: The figure quoted by the hon. Member is the quantity taken into stock since 1st January, 1955. Six hundred and ten thousand gallons of


paint have been ordered during the last twelve months. The types of paint included in this order were entirely different from those recently put up for sale.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what type of paint it is necessary to stock in such huge quantities, and in view of the recent experiences of the tremendous loss to the taxpayer, why are such big orders placed to retain paint in stock for a long time? Is the Minister not aware that the paint manufacturers have huge stocks of paint and that it is easy to get, at very little notice, the type of paint which the Army is buying? If only steps would be taken it would be possible to get rid of the jiggery-pokery about surplus sales which is now going on.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this question has arisen only recently, and is a consequence of the run down in the size of the Army, due to the abolition of A.A. Command and so forth. The types of paint concerned are not those normally used by householders, but those used for ammunition, jerricans and tentage, and also for painting buildings and for various specialised needs of the Army. I admit that this is a problem, but I would stress that it is one which has arisen from the reduction in the size of the Army and as a result of the long cycle of ordering paint between sixteen and eighteen months in advance of its world-wide use.

Territorial Army Volunteers (Bounty)

Sir N. Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in order to provide an immediate inducement to Territorial Army volunteers, he will now grant the increased bounty of £20 after one year's volunteer service.

Mr. Head: No, Sir. Improvements have recently been announced, and I cannot go beyond them.

Sir N. Hulbert: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that this small concession from his Department would do a great deal to encourage volunteers to stay in the Territorial Army?

Mr. Head: All this matter was gone into with great care, and an announcement has been made. I cannot go further than that.

Personal Case

Sir N. Hulbert: asked the Secretary of State for War why 22985643 Private Bell is still detained in custody.

Mr. Head: This soldier is awaiting trial by court-martial on several charges, the most serious of which is desertion.

Sir N. Hulbert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man alleges that he has in his possession a discharge certificate, and will the Minister, under the circumstances, do everything he can to expedite the settlement of this matter?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir, I want to expedite it as quickly as I can. The fact is that the soldier has this certificate but that there are two Private Bells in this Battalion and, unfortunately, the adjutant thought that this man was the other Private Bell.

Sir N. Hulbert: Can my right hon. Friend tell me which Private Bell my constituent is?

Mr. Head: I think he is No. 22985643 Private Bell.

Sir N. Hulbert: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the number which he has quoted is the number on the discharge certificate in the possession of my constituent?

Mr. Head: Then I am afraid that in my haste I have read out the wrong number. [Laughter.] It should be No. 22845669 Private Bell.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Motor Vehicle Industry (Overseas Sales)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what facilities his Department offers to encourage the British motor industry to compete successfully in overseas markets against the growing challenge particularly of Germany.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): All the services of information, help and advice provided by the Board of Trade and overseas officers for exporters generally are available to the motor industry; so are the facilities for export credit insurance offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Mr. Johnson: Does not the Minister think that the best thing he can do is to lift the embargo on exports to China? Is it not a fact that the Americans are pouring cars into China whilst they insist that we retain the embargo? Is it not time that the Minister woke up to facts of life and looked after the interests of the workers in my constituency and also of those of Coventry, which adjoins it?

Mr. Low: As has frequently been explained by my right hon. Friend and myself, the export to China of nearly all types of motor cars is freely allowed. The embargo is upon commercial vehicles.

Mr. Bottomley: Bearing in mind all the excellent service provided by Her Majesty's Government for exporters generally, can the Minister say why the motor car industry is not doing better in the export trade?

Mr. Low: We discussed that matter the other day during the employment debate, and it has been covered by my right hon. Friend frequently in Answers to Questions. It goes much wider than this Question.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that we have had no reply to those observations and that this is why I have put my Question again?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the best thing be to encourage the motor industry by discouraging any further wage increases that put up costs?

Monopolies Commission

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is proposing to take with regard to the Report of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission on the supply and export of pneumatic tyres.

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government proposes to take arising out of the Report of the Monopolies Commission on tyres.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): None, Sir, for the present. As my right hon. Friend said during the Second Reading debate on the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, we do not propose to make Governmental decisions on matters which are now to be made justiciable.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the Minister realise that this is a serious matter, and that the evil to which the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission has drawn attention is aggravated by the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill, because that will legalise individual resale price maintenance in circumstances where, in the case of tyres, it is equivalent to collective resale price maintenance, which is condemned by the Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has singled out one only of the four main recommendations in the Report of the Monopolies Commission. The one to which he refers was in fact only a five-to-four decision of the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. Jay: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how and when, under the procedure which he is proposing, any action will be taken about the tyre industry at all?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, Sir. Of the four major recommendations to which I have referred, two are specifically provided for in Part II of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill. My impression is that the other two will be registrable and so justiciable under Part I.

Mr. Jay: Can the Minister give any date by which any action will be taken?

Mr. Walker-Smith: A great deal sooner than the right hon. Gentleman himself prophesied during the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission's Report on Radio Valves, Television Tubes and Electronic Equipment will be published; the cost of the inquiries so far; whether the Radio Wholesalers Federation were invited to give evidence; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend expects to receive the Commission's Report in the second half of this year, and it will be published as soon as possible thereafter. It is not possible, without a disproportionate amount of work, to make an estimate of the costs of particular inquiries. It is at the discretion of the Commission from what bodies it invites and receives evidence.

Mr. Lewis: Can we have an assurance from the Minister that when this Report is in hand he will not say that the Government will not take action because the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill is pending? If there are some recommendations, will he assure us that the Government will at least give consideration to them, for action on them?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member makes an assumption in that supplementary question. I said that we hope that the Report will be received in the second half of this year. The hon. Member should not assume that the Bill will still be pending at that time.

Wheat (Export to France)

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount and value of the exports of English wheat for seed made to France in the past three months.

Mr. Low: I regret that the information is not available. Exports of wheat for seed are not separately distinguished in the Trade Returns.

Mr. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend help us by giving us the figures for wheat as a whole? Will he also tell us whether the full market price has been paid for the seed wheat sent to France, as he will remember that we had considerable difficulty over the importation here of subsidised French wheat last autumn?

Mr. Low: I cannot answer either of those questions without notice, and I do not think that the second one is for me. It is a question for the trade.

Hire-Purchase Restrictions

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the 50 per cent. initial deposit on hire purchase of sewing machines is a hardship to poor people and is having a serious effect on employment in the industry; and if he will reduce the initial deposit to 20 per cent.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fall in production and export of sewing machines resulting from the latest hire-purchase Regulations, he will reduce the initial deposit on this labour-saving household necessity from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent.

Mr. Atkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reduce the initial deposit required under his Hire-Purchase Regulations on sewing machines from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that although the Singer Sewing Machine Co. exports over 80 per cent. of its output, this penal impost on an essential domestic article will increase both costs and prices and thereby reduce exports and defeat the object which we are told the Government have in mind? Will he therefore look at the matter again?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot accept the hon. Member's description of the hire-purchase restrictions as a penal impost and I see no reason that the good record of this industry in the export field should not be maintained. Of course, all these matters are under constant review, and in that we have been aided by the hon. Member's representations on previous occasions.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend not realise that the other company manufacturing sewing machines is being seriously embarrassed in its efforts to increase its exports of these machines, and that if the Regulations are left as they are, such efforts as the company is making are most unlikely to be as successful as he would like them to be.

Mr. Walker-Smith: All industries pray in aid the desirability of a very large home market as a reinforcement for their export trade, but experience shows that some diminution of the home market is not always at the expense of the export trade.

Mr. Collins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on 16th March last more than 30 per cent. of the members of the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives had been either discharged or were working short time; and if, in order to prevent futher deterioration of the employment situation, he will reduce the initial deposit on hire purchase of furniture to 15 per cent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am aware that there is some short-time working in the furniture industry, but my right hon. Friend does not intend to relax the hire-purchase restrictions on furniture.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that the position which, as he indicated, is already serious, is very rapidly getting worse? Will he not therefore give some assurance that this matter will be looked into or at least give an indication of the level of production which is expected of the furniture industry?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member will appreciate that the level of production of this industry must be looked at in the context of the substantial increase over the last year or two. As for the effect of the hire-purchase restrictions, furniture is still subject to only a 20 per cent. minimum deposit.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that 200 furniture workers in Cardiff have been on short-time employment during the past two weeks? Is he telling them that they must give up their craft and find some other way of earning their living?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the hon. Member has a Question down about that to another Minister.

Mr. Collins: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Apples and Pears (Imports from Australia)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value of imports of pears from Australia for 1953, 1954 and 1955, and the corresponding figures for 1938.

Mr. Low: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS OF FRESH PEARS FROM AUSTRALIA


Year
Cwt.
£


1938
205,134
280,668


1953
306,548
1,541,334


1954
406,772
1,920,676


1955
471,145
2,044,184

Mr. Baldwin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that imports of apples from Australia during the past three years have been at a level

of only two-thirds of the imports in 1938; and what steps he proposes to take to encourage importers to buy more apples from Australia and less from foreign countries.

Mr. Low: Imports of foreign apples are closely restricted by quota for balance of payments reasons, whereas those from the sterling area are free of quota restriction as well as free of duty. Foreign apples have represented such a small proportion of our imports during the main Australian marketing season that they can have had little, if any, effect on the level of our imports from Australia.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not the volume of the imports of dollar apples which causes so much concern to many horticulturists as the fact that they are always imported at a time to coincide with the marketing of the English crop, thereby causing the maximum possible embarrassment to growers in Worcestershire and elsewhere?

Mr. Low: The Question asks about Australian apples, and the marketing season is quite different.

Commander Agnew: Before importation plans for next season's apples are made, will my right hon. Friend's Department make arrangements to see that the growers in the home industry are consulted?

Mr. Low: That is another question. This Question is about Australia and the Australian marketing season.

Mr. Jay: Are not the suggestions of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) quite contrary to the doctrine of Conservative freedom?

Imported Timber (Tariff Negotiations)

Mr. J. Eden: asked the President of the Board of Trade by how much existing small duties on imported timber have been reduced to meet the representations made to him by a number of other countries.

Mr. Low: The tariff negotiations in Geneva, which I assume my hon. Friend has in mind, are still in train and, as my right hon. Friend said on 26th January, we cannot anticipate their outcome.

Mr. Eden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that already it is difficult enough for home producers of timber to sell their products, and if steps are likely to be taken as a result of these discussions which will reduce those small duties it will make it still harder for them to sell their products?

Mr. Low: We have consulted, in confidence, trade associations and bodies likely to be interested in the outcome of the requests which we have received.

Scrap Metal Sales (Receipts)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he estimates the receipts from the sale of iron and steel scrap in 1956–57 at only £30,000, when the cost of recovery and transport of the scrap is expected to be £945,000.

Mr. Low: The total proceeds of sale of scrap metal shown in the Board of Trade Estimates Class VI Vote II for 1956–57 are £30,000 in subhead Z and £2,350,000 in Extra Exchequer Receipts shown in page 33.

United States Surplus Cotton Stocks

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the serious effect on the Lancashire cotton industry of the recently-announced policy of the United States Government that increased quantities of United States cotton will be sold abroad at special prices; and what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the United States Government on the subject.

Mr. Low: For some time the Lancashire cotton industry has been suffering from the uncertainty caused by the existence of large stocks of surplus cotton in the United States, and the doubts about the plans for their disposal. The United States Government have not yet announced the terms of sale for the substantial quantities of surplus cotton which they intend to sell at competitive prices for delivery after July, 1956. It is therefore not yet possible to estimate the full effect of their decision.
Her Majesty's Government attach importance to the United States Government's assurance that it is their intention to effect sales in an orderly manner so as to avoid disrupting world market prices.

Every opportunity has been taken to make our views known to the United States Government, and we shall continue to watch the situation.

Mr. Jay: At a time when Government policy has deliberately created depression in the engineering industry, is it not very serious to have this increasing sign of depression in the cotton industry, too? Can the Minister say what has been the result of these representations to the United States?

Mr. Low: There is no depression in large parts of the engineering industry, and I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. Our representations, including representations by an industrial mission which was prompted by us, have been continuous and pressing, and I have no doubt that they have had some effect on the views of the United States Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the release of these surplus stocks of American cotton must ultimately result in a lower world price of cotton which in turn should make it more difficult for the Indian Government to continue its policy of directly subsidising the price of cotton to Indian spinners, thus enabling Indian mill owners to flood this country with cheap cotton goods? Would he not agree that that, at least, would be to the advantage of Lancashire?

Mr. Low: It is certainly true that an artificially high world price for cotton increases the gap between the price at which the Lancashire industry is able to get its raw material and that at which the Indian industry gets its raw material. To that extent a reduction in the artificially high world price of cotton will help the Lancashire industry, but there are, of course, other considerations, which I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend knows.

Nationalised Industries (Machinery Purchases)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the grave concern felt by British exporters to dollar markets upon learning that dollar funds have been used for purchase by the National Coal Board of opencast coal-mining machinery from


the United States of America, at a cost of $3,000,000 approximately, when equivalent British machinery was available at slightly longer delivery; that the drag-line excavators concerned are now out of commission on the North-East Coast, representing great losses, and whether he will arrange to form a special committee of representatives of the Ministry of Fuel and Power, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Board of Trade and the Treasury, to assure that British machinery is preferred to United States machinery by nationalised industries, dollar funds adequately conserved, and a policy embraced of "Buy British."

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Before this inordinately long Question on the Order Paper is answered, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is still the rule of order that hon. Members may not make speeches on supplementary questions; and if it is, then is it not equally out of order to make a speech on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: There is a rule of order against inordinately long Questions on the Order Paper. I did not think that this Question was inordinately long. I would not call it a speech; it is more like an essay.

Mr. Low: As regards the first two parts of the Question, I have nothing to add to what was said in reply to my hon. Friend on 22nd March. As to the last part of the Question, the existing arrangements for inter-Departmental consultation on import policy and the issue of import licences, which apply to imports by the nationalised industries as to those by private traders, are in the Government's view entirely adequate. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend considers there is no need to set up a special committee of the kind suggested.

Mr. Nabarro: If my right hon. Friend refuses a committee of this sort, what steps will he take in future to prevent bureaucratic blundering of the type manifest in this situation? Is he aware that not only has there been a great dissipation of hard-won dollar resources, but there is also a loss of tens of thousands of tons of coal weekly at a time when the National Coal Board has an accumulated deficit of £37 million? Is that of

any concern to him? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] A jolly good one.

Mr. Low: The principle upon which this import licence for dollar machinery was given was stated in answer to my hon. Friend by the President of the Board of Trade on 22nd March. I really cannot see how it would have helped in the matter of the deficit of the National Coal Board to have forced it to accept machines six months later than the machines it got in this manner.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister really satisfied that existing machinery is working satisfactorily, when it is remembered that dollar imports are ever increasing and adding to our economic difficulties?

Mr. Low: It depends whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the coal machinery, or to the machinery of Government. It is certainly true that the coal machinery broke down, but it is expected to be repaired very shortly. We are satisfied that the machinery of Government is working very satisfactorily.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Betting Duty (Greyhound Race Tracks)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in his forthcoming Budget, he will consider the possibility of changing the present 10 per cent. pool betting duty on all bets placed on the totalisator at greyhound race tracks to a 10 per cent. duty on winning bets only.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I am prepared to consider all suggestions concerning such fiscal changes, but the hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Lewis: May I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the kind way in which he has replied to that Question? Will he bear in mind the fact that, generally speaking, the ordinary working man does not so much object to taxation as to unfair taxation when he finds that the rich do not pay the tax and the poor do? Will he see to it that both rich and poor are equally treated in this respect?

Restriction of Credit (Small Traders)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Mr. Leslie Newing, of Hamilton Road, Deal, a 60-years-old master builder for almost thirty years, has been forced into bankruptcy by the operation of the credit squeeze; and how far it is the Government's policy to allow small businessmen to be forced into bankruptcy by the operation of the credit squeeze.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The information available to me on this case does not support the implication that the insolvency was attributable to the restriction of credit. It is, of course, no part of the Government's policy that small traders should be forced into bankruptcy, but I could not agree that they should be wholly exempted from the present restriction of credit.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his information is directly contrary to the facts known to the individual concerned? The individual concerned has definitely declared that even as a Tory he regrets that he has been forced out of business by a Tory Government after having been employed as a master man for thirty years? Is it not true that in this case and other cases which could be quoted the Government are forcing small businessmen out of business? Is that not part of the Tory policy?

Mr. Macmillan: I have been carefully into this case. The statement of affairs showed that he had 16 preference creditors for £236 and 24 unsecured creditors for £3,067, with a deficiency of some £1,300; he had a secured overdraft of £700, which the bank had asked him to reduce to £500. In those circumstances there is no question of bank credit having been his difficulty. His difficulty was the very large number of creditors, whom he was unable to meet, on a much higher scale.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it remains the aim of the Government to achieve a £300 million a year surplus on the United Kingdom's balance of payments.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. It remains our aim to achieve a substantial

surplus of this order so that we may, over the years, meet our varying obligations.

Mr. Jay: Now that the Government have disowned responsibility for either maintaining full employment or stimulating the export trade, can we at least be assured that they recognise some responsibility for the balance of payments?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman, by his usual method of innuendo, has made a false deduction from a false premise.

Income Tax and Profits Tax (Business Expenses)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an undertaking that contributions by business firms to the new campaign for a reduction in Government expenditure will not be accepted by the Board of Inland Revenue as admissible business expenses in the assessment of Income Tax and Profits Tax.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Contributions by a business firm to such a campaign would not be regarded by the Board of Inland Revenue as an admissible deduction in computing trading profits for taxation purposes.

Income Tax (Self-employed Persons)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now had an opportunity of considering representations made to him as to the desirability of extending Income Tax concession to self-employed persons who wish to make adequate provision for their retirement; and whether he will take action with regard to this matter in the next Finance Bill.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to await my Budget statement.

Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is practically impossible, with the present penal rate of taxation, for self-employed people today either to provide for their own old age or for their families' old age? Is it not terribly unfair that this section of the community should be penalised in this way? Is it not high


time that a Conservative Government remedied this gross injustice?

Mr. Macmillan: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will be content to await my statement on the Budget, which is not a very long time away.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In the meantime, will the Chancellor bear in mind the very great injustice and inequality which results under the present Income Tax laws between those who can and those who cannot make provision for their retirement?

Mr. Macmillan: I think that that was the point of the Question.

Universities (Tuition Fees)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the University Grants Committee has made it a condition of continuance of grant that tuition fees in universities should be increased; and whether this was done with his authority or after consultation with him.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 22nd March to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that that reply was very ambiguous? If it meant anything, will he say whether it meant that it is the policy of the Treasury to secure by one means or another a very substantial increase in university fees paid by university students?

Mr. Macmillan: I have looked at the reply again, and I thought that it was very clear. It made it clear that the University Grants Committee did not make it a condition of a continuation of grants that fees should be raised, but that the universities were now considering proposals aimed at producing greater uniformity of fees. It also made it clear that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been informed of the proposals, my approval to them was not required.

Egyptian Sterling Balances (Releases)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the last sterling balance release was made to

Egypt; how much it was; when the next payment is due; and what amount is now outstanding.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The last published figure for the amount outstanding was £128 million, in October, 1955. Since then £20 million were released to Egypt on 2nd January, 1956, and a further £20 million is due to be released in January, 1957.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while Egypt continues to behave in the antagonistic way in which she has been behaving towards this country, there is no reason whatsoever for releasing the sterling balances? Will he stop the release on that ground alone?

Mr. Macmillan: There are very large questions of commerce and financial policy involved. If we set up as a central banker, we have to meet the deposits of those who bank with us.

Mr. Jay: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with the view so often expressed by the present Prime Minister that financial concessions to Egypt should be dependent upon the political policy followed by the Egyptian Government?

Mr. Macmillan: Concessions and the ordinary operation of central banking are two quite different things.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not one aspect of commercial policy which should be taken into consideration, namely, the refusal of the Egyptian Government to allow the free passage of shipping through the Suez Canal?

Mr. Macmillan: There are many aspects, and that was why I was only indicating to my hon. Friend that this is a difficult matter to deal with precisely by question and answer. These are very large questions, and I content myself with giving my hon. Friend the facts.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that while it is no doubt very proper that we should stand by the financial agreement, there is no necessity in present circumstances for repaying the sterling balances at a faster rate than that provided under the agreement?

Mr. Macmillan: That is another question. I was asked what was the plan under the agreement, and I gave the figures.

Mr. Williams: In view of the way in which these balances were originally established, will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again, with a view to starting discussions with the Egyptian Government to review the whole problem of the sterling balances?

Mr. Macmillan: That is another question. I must point out that this country is governed by its agreements. In the July, 1951, agreement, in the Exchange of Letters, it was definitely laid down that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of scaling down the total amount of the sterling balances. Whether that was right or wrong, I would be very unwilling to go back on a definite undertaking given by the Government, even a Government of another complexion.

Hire-Purchase Restrictions and Purchase Tax

Mr. Awbery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the hire-purchase restrictions and Purchase Tax have created intermittent unemployment among the furniture workers of Bristol to the extent of three days a week for 350 workers, and that a number have been forced to leave the trade and if he will take steps to remove the two chief causes of this slump.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am aware that some workers have left this trade and that there is some short-time working, part of which is attributable to the seasonal decline in demand. As to the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made on behalf of the Government in the debate on employment on 20th March.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that 25 per cent. of the furniture trade operatives in Bristol are either unemployed or on short time, and that the same proportion applies to the whole of the country? In view of the serious effect that this is having upon workers, employers and the country, will the right hon. Gentleman not have second thoughts about what he has been doing?

Mr. Macmillan: All these matters require careful consideration, but I would point out that whether we operate by physical controls, which I understand is the view of the party opposite, or by

monetary and fiscal controls, the object of this whole exercise is to make such a redeployment of industry that we shall be able to increase our exports in a way to make our country solvent.

Entertainments Duty

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to ensure that the incidence of entertainment tax falls equally and equitably on all forms of sport, whether amateur or professional.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I will bear the right hon. and learned Member's suggestion in mind, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Henderson: While not expecting the Chancellor to anticipate his Budget statement, may I ask whether it is not a fact that Entertainments Duty is having a crippling effect upon many forms of professional sport, and that a number of professional football clubs are today faced with bankruptcy? Therefore, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer not at least undertake to re-examine this problem very carefully?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, I will carefully examine it.

Captain Duncan: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that equality may not necessarily be equitable?

Mr. Bowles: Might not the Chancellor be able to do this if he took adequate steps in his next Budget to see that members of the entertainment profession did not owe hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Income Tax authorities? Robert Newton has died owing about £36,000 Income Tax.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Chancellor give at least as much consideration to football as was given by his predecessor to cricket?

Mr. Shinwell: And to boxing?

Mr. Macmillan: Far be it from me to distinguish between these admirable sports.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that the time has come when Entertainments Duty on sport should be abolished altogether?

Mr. Macmillan: I repeat that I must not be asked to anticipate my Budget statement.

London Passenger Transport Board (Retired Officers)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements with regard to pensions increase are to be made for retired officers of the London Passenger Transport Board who were previously employed in local government tramway undertakings and do not at the present time receive any pensions increase.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I understand that these officers have already had their pensions increased in respect of that part of them which is attributable to service under the local authorities concerned. This was done under Regulations made by the Treasury, at the request of the local authorities, in 1953.
If the Pensions (Increase) Bill becomes law, and if requested by the appropriate pension authorities, the Treasury will be prepared to make regulations permitting increases to be paid corresponding to those of the Bill.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had considerable correspondence with him on this question, and that the London Passenger Transport Board, now the London Transport Executive, is continuously dodging its responsibility? While we appreciate that the Minister will give the Executive this power if it requests it, will he not ask the Executive to do the decent thing and make the approach, so that these pensioners can receive the same benefits as their colleagues who were formerly employed by the various councils?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think the Treasury should go so far as to interfere between employers and employees or pensioners in a case like this. What the Treasury can do is to make the requisite regulations empowering the pensions increase to be paid if one of the pensions authorities asks for it.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that the details are not known and of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer from the Transport Executive, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Civil Service (Technical Classes)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the resentment felt by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants at the failure of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service to make recommendations to improve the conditions of pay of the technical classes in the Civil Service; that anomalies result from this failure; and whether he will, nevertheless, take steps to remove the anomalies.

Mr. H. Brooke: The Royal Commission made suggestions for an improvement in the pay of the technical works, engineering and allied classes, but indicated that a thorough review would require a prolonged specialised study which it could not undertake. The Institution of Professional Civil Servants has presented a pay claim, which is under consideration.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the Minister not think that it would be very desirable for this claim to be considered as soon as possible, in view of the professed desire of the Government to improve the status and scope of the technical classes?

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear that the claim is under consideration. A delegation from the I.P.C.S. has already been received by the Treasury. In the circumstances, I think it would be wrong for me to say anything more at this stage.

Mr. Shinwell: While I do not wish to prevent civil servants from obtaining their due reward, is it not about time that something was done for another impoverished class—namely, Members of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Finance (Review)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in the Government inquiry into the financial structure of local government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will extend the derating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, to theatres and music halls.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the representations which he hay received from a group of county borough treasurers, he will now revise the Exchequer equalisation grant formula, and abolish industrial derating.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The review of local government finance, which I announced earlier, is now well under way. Meanwhile, I do not wish to make statements on particular aspects of this problem.

Commander Maitland: While I fully understand my right hon. Friend's desire not to make statements on particular aspects of this matter, does he realise the considerable anxiety of local authorities, particularly those which have had difficulties in revaluation, that a statement should be made as soon as possible? Will he give an assurance that there will be no possible delay in this matter?

Mr. Sandys: There will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. Jeger: In his consideration of this matter, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that theatres and music halls, particularly those outside the West End of London, fulfil all the requirements and conditions for which the 1929 Act came before the House?

Mr. Blenkinsop: When considering this matter, will the Minister bear in mind the Private Member's Bill which was passed in the House only recently on this subject?

Mr. Sandys: It has not escaped my notice.

Mr. Wade: Is the Minister aware that county boroughs such as Huddersfield, which previously received nothing from the Exchequer equalisation fund and which now receive a grant, nevertheless acknowledge that there is need to revise the formula? Is he aware that there is widespread agreement that industrial de-rating is quite illogical?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the result of the review.

Caravan Sites

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that there are thousands of caravans of all kinds in the British countryside with a lack of adequate sanitary facilities; and to what extent it is his policy to encourage the development of official caravan sites under the authority of local councils.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Local authorities, when granting licences for the use of caravans, can impose requirements for securing proper sanitation. Circumstances may render it desirable for local authorities to provide sites, and a number have done so with my right hon. Friend's approval. He is considering if there is any further advice he should give to local authorities on this problem in general.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that since local authorities began this hopeful experiment to rid the countryside of these blots, the Government's financial policy has discouraged them enormously? Will he consider giving financial help in what is a very worth-while attempt to clear the countryside?

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that the caravan position has become very serious throughout the country? Owing to the need for homes, young couples are encouraged to buy caravans, and sites are given by farmers or landowners. Then the local authority steps in, as happened in a case just outside Birmingham, when a number of caravan dwellers were forced on to the side of the road because they had nowhere to go, and were prosecuted because their caravans were at the side of the road. The local authority then had to find them accommodation.

Mr. Powell: This is a very real problem. Local authorities have to fulfil both their public health and their housing duties.

Demolition Orders (Resale of Land)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that some local authorities are purchasing land at site valuation consequent upon the issue of a demolition


order and then reselling at a price greatly in excess of the purchase price; and if he will introduce legislation to prevent this.

Mr. Sandys: The consequence of a demolition order is to require the demolition of the house concerned. It does not involve the purchase of the land by the local authority.

Mr. Moyle: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the case which I submitted to him wherein the transaction of reselling land arising from the operation of a demolition order resulted in a 200 per cent. profit being made, and which, of course, caused public disquiet? Has the Minister any statement to make about that?

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to make a statement about a particular case, perhaps he will put down a Question on the Order Paper. I have not sufficient information on that case to form a judgment as to how it could have arisen.

Land and Property (Disposal Price)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what public Acts and Regulations govern the price at which local authorities dispose of land and property.

Mr. Sandys: The only specific statutory provision is Section 79 of the Housing Act, 1936.

Mr. Remnant: Does my right hon. Friend deny that local authorities can acquire land or property under a compulsory purchase order at a district valuer's valuation and that if either that land or property is not afterwards required they can sell it to the highest bidder? Is that not very unfair to the previous owner?

Mr. Sandys: That, of course, is one of the difficulties of the two-price system.

St. Paul's Precincts Rebuilding Scheme (Model)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will place a model of St. Paul's Precincts Rebuilding Scheme in the Library.

Mr. Sandys: The Corporation of the City of London has kindly agreed to

lend this model, and I have arranged for it to be placed in the Upper Waiting Hall immediately after the Easter Recess.

Compulsory Purchase Orders, Gateshead

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government on what date he proposes to hold a public inquiry into the Chandles compulsory purchase orders, numbers 1 and 2.

Mr. Sandys: The inquiry into the Chandless No. 1 Compulsory Purchase Order has been fixed for 29th May. I have not yet received the Chandless No. 2 Order, but if it arrives soon the inquiry can probably be held at the same time.

Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware of the desperate housing shortage in Gateshead, and that the slum clearance scheme which is under consideration will go a long way to relieve the problem in that borough? Can the Minister give an assurance that after the hearing there will be no further delay in proceeding with the project? May I also ask him whether Gateshead is one of the cities on his list for visiting, because he will certainly be welcome there to see the slums?

Mr. Sandys: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall give a decision as quickly as possible after the inquiry has been held. I would add that I cannot accept invitations to go everywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC SITUATION (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent series of discussions he has had with leaders of industry.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meetings with the representatives of the Federation of British Industries and of the nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): The series of meetings which my colleagues and I have held with representatives of the Trades Union Congress, the British Employers' Confederation, the Federation of British Industries and the chairmen of the nationalised industries have given us a useful opportunity


to discuss the general economic situation. Statements have been made after each of these meetings and I would not wish to add to them here. The value of such meetings lies in their informal character, and anything in the nature of a general commentary would not be appropriate.
It is my intention to seek an opportunity to carry these discussions further.

Mr. Williams: While welcoming the Prime Minister's statement and his initiative in this matter, may I ask him whether he is aware that one of the greatest causes of inflation is the total failure of the nationalised industries to do anything to curtail price rises; and whether he will make some statement on the efforts which he personally is making to see that the nationalised industries run, first, less unprofitably, and, secondly, do something to create price stability?

The Prime Minister: With respect to my hon. Friend, I am afraid that he is getting a little ahead of the Order Paper—the next Question.

Mr. Davies: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the House that he did not make any greater demands on the nationalised industries than he made on the privately-owned industries; and, in view of the fact that the Government have persuaded the Transport Commission not to increase its charges sufficiently to meet the costs, will he equally persuade private industry not to raise prices, even if the failure to raise them results in a fall in profits and a reduction in dividends?

The Prime Minister: I think that if the hon. Member looks at the statement made after our discussion with the British Employers' Confederation he will find that a large part of his question is met. So far as the nationalised industries are concerned, there is a Question on the Order Paper—the very next one—on the subject, and I do not think that I ought to anticipate it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICE STABILISATION

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Prime Minister, following his discussions with employers' representatives, trade unions' representatives and heads of nationalised boards, whether he will make a statement

of arrangements concluded for price stabilisation; and what assurances have been given by the State coal, electrical, gas and transport undertakings that such basic services as they provide to British industry will be at prices fixed at present levels at least for the rest of 1956.

The Prime Minister: It was not within the scope of these discussions to make formal arrangements or to seek formal assurances such as my hon. Friend suggests. The object has been to review our national economy and to emphasise the need to keep down prices. As regards the nationalised industries in particular there was general agreement—and I think this is a quotation from what we agreed—that because of the effect on the whole of industry it was of the utmost importance for the national economic well-being that increases in their wages and other costs should, as far as possible, be absorbed by increased productivity and economy.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend observed that since his meeting with the heads of the nationalised industries, the Transport Commission has announced a substantial increase in freight rates, followed consequentially by an increase in coal prices, and is he aware that what the majority of us are greatly concerned about is the vicious spiral between transport and coal and the fact that each time the price of one goes up the price of the other goes up ad infinitum and thereby inflates beyond all control the prices charged by private enterprise?

The Prime Minister: I think that I am as conscious as is my hon. Friend of the great complexity of these matters. We have tried to treat them in these discussions—and we must go on trying to treat them—as a national problem to be met by the nation as a whole and by everybody trying to do his part in meeting them. I really am not prepared to single out this or that industry for indictment. When we meet for our private talks we say frankly to each other what we think about these matters, but I think that we must try to keep a national view of the problem.

Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming the tone of the Prime Minister's reply to his hon. Friend, may I ask him whether, in view of the fact that the Government have intervened to prevent an increase in


fares at the cost of the Transport Commission continuing to make a loss, it is the intention of the Government, since the Coal Board is also making a loss, to intervene to prevent a rise in coal prices, and whether, if that is the case, he will ask the Chancellor to reverse his decision on the subsidies on bread and milk?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to follow him in detail in reply to his question. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport gave his reasons for the decision to which we came, and I do not think that I can go beyond that at present.

Mr. Lee: Is the Prime Minister aware that although we welcome conversations which can help in stabilising the economy, such discussions can never be a substitute for discussions in the House? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that we have not had, either in the recent industrial debate or at any time, any concrete statement from the Government as to what is happening in these discussions so that the House of Commons might be made aware of the developments?

The Prime Minister: I certainly never thought for a moment that these talks could be any substitution for discussion in this House, which is sovereign in these matters, and which has every right to examine them at any time. At the same time, I think it is desirable, so far as it can be done, that we should try, in these private exchanges, to meet problems of which we are all conscious.

Mr. H. Wilson: Are we to take it from the various announcements made within the last week or two, and from the White Paper published by the Government, that the Government have in mind to enter into a period, for six months or so, of a general price freeze and an appeal for restraint in wages? If that is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, will he make it clear to some of his right hon. Friends that such a price freeze would be absolutely impossible unless the Government were prepared to reintroduce price control?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will realise, I am sure, that he has gone a very long way from the Question on the Order Paper. If he wants an answer, perhaps he will put down a Question.

Mr. Osborne: Does not my right hon. Friend think that more could be done through the Central Office of Information to make known the serious fact to the people on the floor of the House—[Laughter]—I mean the floor of the factories and also in the boardrooms that unless something is done we shall be faced with a situation such as this generation has never been faced with before?

The Prime Minister: I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that in these matters the Floor of the House and the floor of the factory are about of equal importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Slum Clearance, Knottingley and Goole

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will visit Knottingley and Goole during his tour of slum areas.

Mr. Sandys: I appreciate the hon. Member's invitation and I will gladly bear his suggestion in mind.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister bear in mind that the local authorities of both those towns would be very glad to welcome him and to conduct him on a tour of the slums which they are unable to clear owing to the housing policy initiated by himself?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, COVENTRY

Mr. Edelman: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the appeal tribunal in Coventry concerning unemployment benefits affecting immediately several thousand men; and whether, in view of this decision, he will in the interim allow benefit to be paid pending a further appeal.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Yes, Sir. In the Lockheed case decided yesterday some 400 men are affected. Unemployment benefit will be payable to them pending the National Insurance Commissioner's decision on an appeal. In view of the conflicting decision in the


Standard case, about which an appeal has been lodged by the trade union concerned, I am asking the Commissioner if he will expedite the hearing of the appeals in both these cases.

Mr. Edelman: While thanking the Minister for his urgent attention to the anomalous position which has arisen, may I ask whether he will confirm that should he lose the appeal retrospective benefit will be paid to the men?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I understand the position, it is this. In the case where benefit has been found to be payable it will, as I said in my main Answer, be paid in any event until the Commissioner hears the appeal. In the case where benefit has been refused, if the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that benefit should have been paid it will then be paid retrospectively.

Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when he is considering this special case, that these men are working a four-day week and still drawing about £12 a week, whereas the agricultural worker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going far beyond the bounds of the Question.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (LONDON SECTION)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the London section of the British Industries Fair.
The House will recall that the British Industries Fair is in two sections. One section, which is at Birmingham, has always been the responsibility of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. The other section, which is in London, was the responsibility of the Board of Trade until 1954, when this responsibility was transferred to British Industries Fair, Ltd., a company formed for the purpose. Under the British Industries Fair (Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1954, the Treasury have guaranteed £100,000 to the company and the Board of Trade have made annual grants for publicity.
It has become clear, however, that the London section of the Fair in its traditional form no longer meets a general

need, since most traders prefer to take part in specialised shows in which attention can be focused on the products of a particular industry. There has been a consequent decline in interest in the Fair, on the part of both buyers and exhibitors. Faced with these trends, Sir Ernest Goodale and his colleagues of the British Industries Fair, Ltd., have, nevertheless, been unsparing in their efforts to sustain the Fair, and I am glad to have this opportunity of paying a warm tribute to their work.
In spite of all they have done, however, the results of the Fairs in 1955 and 1956 are such that the directors have recently informed me that the Treasury guarantee of £100,000 will be insufficient to enable the Company to carry on and to meet its liabilities. After full consideration the Government have decided that, while they will meet by a Supplementary Estimate the net liabilities over and above the guarantee, and waive recovery of the £100,000 to be paid under it, it would not be right to provide public money for the Fair after the Olympia Fair next month, which will, therefore, be the last to be held in London.
I understand that the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce intend to continue the Fair at Castle Bromwich.
The Government are convinced that, in the changed circumstances of today, public money can be more effectively used in other ways for the promotion of our export trade. Accordingly, the Government intend that the money hitherto spent on publicity for the Fair will in future be used by the Board of Trade mainly in connection with overseas fairs and exhibitions at which British goods are shown and the prestige of our products upheld. The Government will consider, in consultation with the main industrial organisations concerned, how this can most effectively be done.

Mr. Bottomley: The House will have heard with great regret the decision to close the British Industries Fair which, except for the war years, has been continuously in being since 1915. May I ask the President of the Board of Trade how he squares the Government's decision with the opinion that the British Industries Fair, Ltd. would act in accord with modern times and more efficiently


than the old British Industries Fair, conducted by his Department? I warned him at the time that the Fair would close.
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman what will be done about overseas publicity in the British Industries Fair? The Castle Bromwich Section is to continue. Do the Government accept responsibility for the money to be incurred in overseas publicity? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Exhibition's advisory committee was consulted about this, and, if so, what was its reply? I am sure that the country as a whole will regard this decision as a further example of the Government's lack of support for the export drive.

Mr. Thorneycroft: This is, of course, a Government decision, but the fullest consultation has taken place with the British Industries Fair, Ltd., and discussions have also taken place with the Federation of British Industries.
On the question of the way in which the money at present spent on overseas publicity should be spent in future, I hope that the Fair at Birmingham will be entirely self-supporting. It is an extremely successful Fair and it has been run at a profit and should be a self-supporting venture. Our object in these matters would be to devote the amount of money normally spent on overseas publicity—about £90,000 to £100,000—to the overseas fairs. Just which fairs we should put our weight behind will be a matter for consultation between the Government and the industrial interests concerned.

Mr. Gaitskell: While it is no doubt desirable—and we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement—that Government money should be used to support overseas fairs, is it not very regrettable that at this moment of all moments, when we desperately need an increase in our export trade, the President of the Board of Trade should have removed the subsidy altogether from the British Industries Fair in London?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir, I do not think so. It is important to put the Government effort behind things which look successful, where a real need is shown. If one studies the figures, one will see that from 1948 onwards there has been a steady decline both in the number of exhibitors and in the number

of buyers attending them. That is a clear indication that this is not the best way of supporting the export drive. It would be much better to spend our money overseas, where we want to sell the goods.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the amount of money to be spent on helping overseas fairs will not be limited to the amount that happens to have been spent in guaranteeing the London Fair?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not for me. What I am saying is that the amount of money which has been spent up till now on overseas publicity will still be devoted to the export interests of this country.

Sir J. Barlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be welcomed by many manufacturers and exporters? Is it not a fact that this money could much better be used in exhibitions abroad, especially those confined to particular industries, rather than in general exhibitions, where money can easily be wasted?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. That represents a widely held view in industry.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one reason for the failure of this Fair is the idiotic fact that the Western world is trying to cut off one half of the entire population of the world from trade? Can we have an assurance that when these fairs abroad are subsidised there will be better exhibitions than those in Milan and India, and, further, will the right hon. Gentleman subsidise the possibility of East-West trade and lift these foolish embargoes, which are undermining our prosperity?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As far as the London end of the Fair is concerned, where the consumer goods industries are exhibiting, there is very little on the strategic list at all.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to encourage our export trade one of the most urgent needs is to bring to an end strikes and inter-union quarrels, such as that taking place at Cammell Laird's shipyard, which are endangering millions of pounds' worth of valuable orders?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go into an economic debate on this statement. If any hon. Gentleman has a real question to ask in order to elicit information, I will gladly hear him.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the President of the Board of Trade say whether consideration has been given to the foreign currency earned as a result of buyers coming to this country? Was that, together with the tourist trade, considered at the time of making this decision?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I very much hope that foreign buyers will continue to come, as they do come, to the many specialised exhibitions by our great industries. This decision does not detract from the export effort, but makes an alteration in its emphasis where it is most needed.

Mr. Collins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that a part at least of this sum of money which is now to be paid abroad will be devoted to assisting the exhibiting of articles selected by the Council of Industrial Design either for inclusion in British exhibits or as articles for single exhibition in foreign exhibitions?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we maintain the closest co-operation with the Council of Industrial Design, to whose work I attach the greatest importance; but just how the money is spent is a matter really for discussion between the Government and the great industrial organisations themselves.

Mr. Shepherd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the real reason for the decline in the British Industries Fair is the growth of the specialised exhibitions, and that that, on the whole, is not an adverse circumstance? Has he considered to what extent the Board of Trade will help these specialised exhibitions?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am sure my hon. Friend is quite right, that the real reason behind the decline is the growth of the specialised exhibitions. I think we ought not to deplore that, but rather be very proud of it. These exhibitions stand on their own feet and attract buyers from all over the world. As to giving them help, I do not think that they need any at present. They are firmly established and they will continue to attract people from many countries to see their goods.

Mr. S. Silverman: Since the right hon. Gentleman held out hope, at least, that the money saved in this way would not be withdrawn from support for the export trade, but would be used largely to assist the exhibition of British goods in fairs abroad, can he say whether that means that in his opinion the fairs abroad have been more successful than those in England? If so, can he say why?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think there is a natural benefit in showing goods in the countries in which you wish to sell them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Question before the House.

Orders of the Day — UNDERGROUND WORKS (LONDON) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Patrick Buchan-Hepburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The last time I moved the Second Reading of a Bill was when I was lucky in the Ballot, in 1932. It was called the Wheat Act (1932) Amendment Bill which, in spite of its high-sounding title, referred simply to ships' biscuits. I sincerely believed that it would be helpful to my constituents, but the Whips ordered it to be strangled at birth, which it was, very efficiently. On this occasion, therefore, I am glad I can count on the friendly support of my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip.
The Underground Works (London) Bill, to which I am asking the House to give a Second Reading today, seeks to provide for the acquisition of surface land and subsoil occupied by certain deep tube shelters and their ancillary works in London, all of which are still held on requisition by my Ministry. By a decision of the wartime Government eight deep tube shelters were built in London by the London Passenger Transport Board under emergency powers, at a cost of £2½million. They certainly could not be constructed for that price today. We are concerned here with the seven shelters listed in the Bill the eighth shelter is now used for special purposes by the Post Office and is not included.
I confess I had never seen any of these shelters until recently, when, for obvious reasons, I made it my business to go and look at them. I do not suppose that many other hon. Members have seen them either, so I should perhaps give as short a description of them as I can. The surface works of each shelter at each of its two entrances, there being two entrances to each, consist of a circular concrete cap about 40 feet in diameter and 20 to 30 feet in height, each cap containing a circular staircase and lift shaft; there is also a ventilation shaft.
It is when one goes underground that one realises the full extent of the con-

struction. Each shelter has twin horizontal tunnels between 65 to 120 feet below the surface of the ground. Each tunnel is 18 feet in diameter, and about a quarter of a mile in length. Each tunnel, again, is divided in half horizontally to make two floors, so that there is in each of these shelters floor space of about a mile in length.
All are equipped with electric light, ventilation, washing and sanitary accommodation. In each shelter there is room for 8,000 people, so that in all the shelters constructed 64,000 people could have slept, if not in their own beds, at least in bunks of their own, with essential amenities and in complete safety from enemy attack. I am sure the House will agree, without any undue pessimism about the future, that it would be imprudent at least to abandon these shelters at present.
There is a second reason for their preservation, or, at any rate, the preservation of some of them. All the shelters were purposely built near the underground railway so as to form part of a new fast track if it should be decided to build one. The London Passenger Transport Board was given an option in its construction agreement to purchase them. The British Transport Commission, as the legal successors of the Board, has now given up its option to three of the shelters, retaining it in the case of the other four.
Of course, it may be decided in the future that these shelters serve no purpose whatsoever and must be filled in. The cost of that work would obviously be astronomical, even if filling material were available. However, be that as it may, I hope I have made it clear that for the present these shelters should be preserved. The Government also consider that eleven years after the war these shelters should not be held on requisition any longer.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these shelters are deteriorating in any way, and whether any cost is involved? The reason I ask is that under the previous policy of maintaining shelters—and I understand why they were maintained—it was found by many local authorities that they could not be maintained. They deteriorated badly and then, after some time, they all had to be closed. Are these shelters all right in that sense?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: A considerable sum of money is spent on maintenance, which comes under the Vote of my Ministry.
I should now explain why it is proposed to proceed by way of a Bill rather than use existing powers under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. Some surface land has, in fact, been acquired already by direct negotiation, but we came up against difficulties. After all, most of what has to be acquired consists of tunnels at a considerable depth underground. They are under a very large number of properties, and sometimes under highways.
It would be a tremendous task to trace all the owners, lessees, sub-lessees, and so on, of the land immediately above the tunnels, and it would be very difficult to establish who was the owner of the soil under the highways. To try to do all this when, as we believe to be the case, there are about 1,000 owners of one kind or another involved—and these tunnels are not likely to cause them the slightest embarrassment, being so far underground—would entail, in our opinion, an unnecessary waste of time and money.
I must, however, make it quite clear that if any property owner suffers loss because his surface land is taken he is, by this Bill, entitled to compensation of exactly the same kind as if we had proceeded under the compulsory powers which we already have. Compensation is also provided under the Bill if the Minister neglects to maintain these works so that they fall in and damage the property above. I believe that that is a purely hypothetical contingency, as it is surely inconceivable that any Minister would be so neglectful and careless as to take risks with life and property in this way or, to put it on a lower level, to expose himself to the danger of paying huge sums in compensation.
I should now like to refer to another reason for proceeding by Bill. Part of the superstructures of three of the works—those at Goodge Street, Clapham South, and Stockwell—are situated on common land, and it is right that common land should be acquired only after the most careful consideration. But this common land has already been taken and used as a result of the rough-and-ready action which we expect in wartime, and the superstructures, being there, could not

possibly be removed except at very great expense. Consequently, it is not considered that any useful purpose would be served by going through the normal complicated procedure in relation to common land.
Then, apart from the question of common land, some shelter caps encroach on pavements and highways, and it is very doubtful whether I can acquire parts of the highway under any existing legislation. In view of these difficulties and of the unique circumstances it seemed clear to the Government that the best thing to do was to make one operation of the proceedings in one Bill.
I ought to say that as and when the Bill becomes an Act every effort will be made to find a continuing use for these shelters, although it would be idle to pretend that that will be very easy. If at any time it is decided that the shelters are no longer required, the most sympathetic consideration will be given to erasing the surface caps and returning the common land and the highways.
I will now run shortly through the principal provisions of the Bill. The Preamble describes the works and gives some details of the plans and a book of reference deposited with the London County Council and other local authorities. Clause 1 vests the subsoil occupied by the shelters and in the case of surface works both surface and subsoil. As a verbal description of the land comprising the surface works would be complicated and lengthy it is proposed to show the land by large-scale signed plans, which are those defined in subsection (2).
Clause 2 deals with compensation. As it is intended to vest instead of conferring the power to acquire land it is necessary to adapt the machinery of the Lands Clauses Acts to this situation. Clause 3 (1) refers to one case—Belsize Park—where the only access to one of the surface works is by means of a private road. Subsection (2) regularises the existing encroachments—which are of a minor character—of some of the surface works on roads, and these encroachments, and so on, are listed in the First Schedule.
Clause 4 vests in the Minister certain drains and waterpipes connecting the shelters to the public drains and water services, and these are described in the Second Schedule. Arrangements are


made in subsections (3) and (4) for compensation to owners of the land through which the pipes pass. Clause 5 gives protection to owners in relation to any damage caused by the Minister's negligence to maintain the works. Clause 6 refers to a special case—Lendal Terrace—where a vertical access shaft under the roadway is reached by a subway, of shallow depth, which may affect the development of the land.
Clause 7 mainly safeguards the interests and rights of the London Transport Executive provided for under the existing agreements listed in subsection (3). Subsection (1) of Clause 7 is intended to safeguard the London Transport Executive's ownership of any underground works which happen to be partly under surface works which are being acquired. Clauses 8 and 9 I think, speak for themselves.
This is a hybrid Bill, as it affects private interests, and Standing Orders require that all private interests which may be affected and can be identified must be notified. Advertisements must be inserted in newspapers, and information lodged at town halls for all to see. This has been done, and after the debate we shall ask the House to commit the Bill to a Select Committee to hear any petitions lodged against it. This procedure gives those affected every chance to know what is happening and to express their objections. It is only after the Select Committee has reported that this Bill will return to the House for the normal Committee stage of a public Bill.
It only remains for me, in apologising for the length and other shortcomings of this speech, to ask the House to give this Bill its Second Reading in due course. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will believe me when I say that as Minister of Works, concerned generally in trying to preserve what is both historic and beautiful, it is not from personal choice that I ask the House to allow me to embrace these objects.
This is a short Bill but not an easy one, and I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be ready to deal with any special points raised. I hope, however, that I have said enough at this stage to show that these works must be preserved, at least for the present, that the time to put their ownership on a permanent basis has come, and that vest-

ing by the method laid down is the simplest, the most expeditious and, I believe, the only practicable method, in unique circumstances, of carrying out the purposes which we have before us.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The whole House would wish to express its condolences to the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Buchan-Hepburn) on having had to resume his long-suspended legislative activities by moving the Second Reading of a Bill, which has been made necessary by what appears to have been slipshod administration either in his Department or in the Home Office. We are glad to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department present this afternoon.
The right hon. Member was understandably reticent about some of the complications in the background to the Bill. They are to be found in the memoranda and oral evidence submitted by the Home Office and the Ministry of Works to the Select Committee on Estimates in the Session 1953–54, when it was considering Civil Defence. When the Committee reported it referred to
an extraordinary legal delay
in rectifying the position of the deep shelters.
In paragraph 25 it went so far as to say that the Committee were
disturbed to discover that legal technicalities under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, were delaying the acquisition of the deep shelters which already exist in London, although the power of requisition will come to an end in 1955. In spite of the urgency of this matter the chief Home Office witness was quite unaware of the problem.
The problem had gone on for five years when the Select Committee was considering it in 1953.
The Ministry of Works memorandum to the Committee said that it had been decided as long ago as 1948 that the deep shelters were to be acquired under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, or else leased, for use by the Home Office. The memorandum added that acquisition was being undertaken by the Ministry of Works. It transpired in oral evidence that unless the position was resolved by the end of 1955 the owners of the land could remove or destroy the shelters. When the Ministry of Works, through the person of an Under-Secretary, Mr. G. H. Bosworth, gave evidence before the


Select Committee, a rather striking statement was made by Mr. Bosworth. He said:
Right at the beginning, when we first considered this problem, everybody said, 'It is going to be much too complicated to do this under the powers given by the Act. The thing to do is to have special legislation to acquire these deep Tube shelters.' It was decided not to do that, and a great deal of hard work has been done by the Lands people, drawing up schedules, listing owners and all sorts of things in connection with these purchases. Now it appears that it may, after all, be necessary to have special legislation.
The Ministry had already threshed about with the problem for five years, and it decided three years ago that special legislation was necessary. What was even more surprising was what the Home Office said in evidence about a week later. Sir Arthur Hutchinson, Deputy Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, was accompanied by Major General S. F. Irwin, Chairman of the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff. When faced by the Chairman of the Committee, who was my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) with the problem that had developed, Sir Arthur said:
I am afraid that is completely new to me. I will look into that. Is it permissible to ask who has been telling you that?
The Chairman replied:
The Ministry of Works told us.
We do not understand why it has taken eight years to acquire these deep shelters for the use of the Department. This is a story of lack of interest on the part of the Home Office and, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, of lack of persistence on the part of the Ministry of Works. Now we have before us the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman was in one of his previous incarnations he would feel much more strongly about the Bill, which is brought before us in a crowded Session when the Government's time-table is already in ruins, and which deals with a matter which is the result of lack of care on the part of two Government Departments.
We are not opposing the Bill. Our main objection is to the delay in clearing up the administrative muddle which has taken place. There are three other objections which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister and I hope that they will be cleared up at a later stage.

Before I come to those, however, I want to ask the Minister a question.
We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that the maintenance cost will be £30,000 a year, but in the memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman's Department submitted to the Select Committee less than three years ago we were told that the annual cost would be £15,000. We all appreciate that purchasing power has dropped catastrophically under the present Administration, but it has not dropped by 50 per cent. in three years. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the estimate of three years ago was right or whether we are to accept the estimate in the Explanatory Memorandum?
The first of our three objections is that the entrances to these deep shelters will, sooner or later, interfere with road-widening schemes. The second is that the shelters in some cases sterilise open spaces dedicated to the enjoyment of the public. The third objection is that the entrances are very unsightly. I shall leave the first objection to hon. Gentlemen representing the constituencies affected. The second objection is of more substance; the right hon. Gentleman referred to it when he mentioned the taking of open spaces. While proposing to take public open spaces for purposes for which they were not originally intended the Bill makes no arrangement for the provision of alternative land. That is bad in principle and is even worse in practice.
One or two matters arise out of the deep shelter at Goodge Street, which has two entrances. The first is in Whitfield Gardens, a small open space.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: They all have two entrances.

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, but neither of these is in Goodge Street. The first entrance is in Whitfield Gardens, a small open space in Tottenham Court Road, which, I understand, is owned by the London County Council and is managed by the St. Pancras Metropolitan Borough Council. A large part of the gardens is taken up by the entrance to the shelter, although the district is already very deficient in open space. One hundred yards away in North Crescent, Chenies Street, is the other entrance, where it ruins a small private open space.
Another case is the Clapham deep shelter, near Clapham South Tube Station, on land owned by the London County Council. Land of equal area and of equal benefit to the public should be provided by the Minister in the manner laid down by the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. It is wholly unjustified that the Government should take over land dedicated to the enjoyment of the public without providing equivalent open space as near as possible to the land that has been taken over.
The next point is the unsightliness of these structures, built when material was scarce and harshness and austerity were the order of the day. They are ugly in themselves and, especially, in the superstructures which accompany them. In some cases they appear to be ventilating towers. They ruin the site upon which they are placed. There are two, for example, that detract from the sites of war memorials. One is at Stockwell, and the other is at Chenies Street where the memorial of the Rangers (12th County of London Regiment) of the King's Royal Rifle Corps is placed in undignified surroundings because of the enormous structure erected on the site. That is quite apart from the inconvenience which must be caused to the owners or occupiers of neighbouring property.
In the case of Whitfield Gardens, the entrance to the deep shelter there abuts on the site of Whitfield's Tabernacle and ruins the setting of the new church, to the design of which considerable care has been given. I submit to the Minister that so far as possible he should remove these unsightly superstructures and, where that cannot be done, make them as little obtrustive and repulsive as possible. Other criticisms I propose to leave to hon. Members more intimately concerned than myself.
I conclude by saying that we regard this as a not very impressive attempt to repair some of the damage which has been caused by negligence and muddle in high places and as further evidence of the lack of the Government's preparedness for Civil Defence.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I join in support of this Bill, because I think that the difficulties and complications which some of us had to put up with

during the war and for some time afterwards could be cured by bringing the whole of these tunnels and the structures on top of them under one ownership and control, which would make it much easier to deal with them in the future.
I cannot go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in condemnation of what happened when they were built. They were built at a time of very great stress, and there is not the slightest doubt that they were a godsend to thousands of people during the air raids. This is particularly true of my own constituency, in which there are three of these deep tunnels. I saw people dashing into them as soon as the warning went, and I am quite sure that a good many people were saved from becoming nervous wrecks by being able to go into them before the actual noise and shooting started. I think that circumstances now justify action being taken in regard to work done at that time which some of us knew to be not strictly legally correct. There is no reason, however, why, with the passage of time, we should have to put up quite so complacently with the ugliness and town planning difficulties which we created ourselves during the war.
The entrances to all these tunnels, which may have been strong enough to withstand the heaviest bomb, certainly could not have been uglier. When we find enormously thick and ugly structures of this kind, not only on corners of streets but actually on public open spaces, it is something of a scandal that we should have allowed this to go on for so long without having done something to level off and seal the top of the tunnels, which, I admit, would have been an expensive proposition, or at any rate to cover up the ugliness.
I remember that during the war, when the Admiralty structure on the Horse Guards Parade was built, it was covered with a creeper, which, during the summer, looks very nice, green and pleasant and hides some of the ugly building that lies behind it. I make a strong plea that the Ministry should do all that it possibly can, once it gets full legal control over them, to improve these ugly structures, if they cannot pull them down.
The structure at the Stockwell War Memorial bites an enormous slice out of the War Memorial green and dwarfs the


memorial clock, which is one of the best pieces of clock architecture in South London. It also adds considerably to the traffic difficulties there. I do not see why that structure cannot be removed or, at any rate, made less objectionable by removing parts of it, so that people may get, the full advantage of what used to be a well-used little open space in a rather busy part of Lambeth.
To some extent the same applies to Clapham South and the structure on Clapham Common. I do not say that that is in quite the same category of urgency as Stockwell Green, but it is a most ugly structure and I should have thought that at least something could have been done to cover it up so that the people using the common are not offended every time they look at it.
I want also to refer to the structure on the corner of Clapham Park Road and the High Street, which is partly built over a road improvement. Until it is removed, the London County Council cannot improve the Clapham Park Road, which is greatly in need of improvement. The corner there is most dangerous. It is rather narrow and a great deal of traffic comes round it from three or four directions. I am afraid that one day we may have really serious accidents there, although the police and the traffic lights do a great deal in helping to avoid accidents.
That structure is built on land which I understand the L.C.C. already owns, and until it is removed it may not be possible to affect the very necessary road improvements. There is a complication because I believe that the Ministry of Works is already using that structure for storage purposes, but I am not sure about that. I sincerely hope that when the Minister gets this Bill he will take urgent steps to tackle that particular eyesore and danger to road improvement.
I congratulate the Minister on what I believe is his maiden effort as a Minister in presenting a Bill, and I hope that by means of this Bill, which I am quite sure will be passed, he will do what he can to speed up action at difficult corners like Whitfield Gardens. It is a scandal that eleven years after the war what used to be a lovely little garden should be completely spoiled by a structure which had to be put there during the war. I hope that he will also deal with the structures

at Stockwell and Clapham Park Road, where urgent road improvement is needed. I cannot see why, if we have to keep them—and at the moment it looks as though we may have to keep them for a few more years—something cannot be done to cover them up and make them a little less repulsive. I wish the Bill every success.

4.19 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in congratulating the Minister on his first appearance in charge of a Bill in this House. He has already been assured that there is unlikely to be a Division on Second Reading, so that to all intents and purposes he is getting the Bill on the nod. When I think of some of the divergencies in which he indulged when he was Chief Whip on the Government side of the House, I begin to wonder whether he really deserves his good fortune.
I want to refer to the superstructure on the Stockwell War Memorial Gardens. It is referred to as Item 4 in the First Schedule of the Bill. The superstructure is just within the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss); it is almost on the boundary between his constituency and mine, both being in the Borough of Lambeth. This part of the War Memorial Gardens was requisitioned by the London Passenger Transport Board in 1941 under the Defence Regulations then in force and, although it had no objection to the use of the War Memorial Gardens for this purpose, with a view to helping the war effort, the Lambeth Borough Council made it clear that the London Passenger Transport Board should enter into an agreement to safeguard the Metropolitan Borough Council's interest in this open space.
Shortly after the war ended, in November, 1947, the Borough Council of Lambeth made an approach to the Ministry of Works on the subject. It was told that it was essential to retain this superstructure, but that the Ministry would examine the question of the removal of the structure or some modification to improve its appearance. Nothing happened. In October, 1948, the Ministry of Works came on the scene,


because the Ministry wanted to acquire the site permanently. Even then the council made it clear that it was not prepared to enter into negotiations, particularly for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson): the site encroached upon was the site of the Stockwell War Memorial.
The council again suggested that the superstructure of the deep shelter should be removed to the other side of the road, thus freeing the open space entirely for the purpose for which it was originally intended. It may be that the regard with which this little open space is held is purely sentimental, but it is the official war memorial for the Borough of Lambeth. Whenever an Armistice Day service takes place there is always a march from the parish church to this war memorial, but the war memorial has been quite overshadowed by this monstrosity, which almost touches it.
Ever since the war the council has used every possible endeavour to persuade the Government Departments concerned to remove the shelter. When the news was received that a Bill would be introduced to clarify the position and to make it easy for the Government to do what they liked about it, the council once again asked hon. Members representing the three constituencies in Lambeth to do what they could to put forward the point of view which is held very strongly by both the borough council and the population in the neighbourhood.
It might be expensive to move this monstrosity to the other side of the road, but, if it cannot be moved, the Government ought to consider whether it could be modified, made smaller or covered in some way for as long as it needs to remain.
Although the Bill is not being officially opposed, we hope that the Ministry of Works will at the earliest possible moment remove what they themselves admit to be an offending surface superstructure. It is offensive to the eye and to the sentiment. I join in the plea already made that an effort should be made to try to give priority to the removal of this monstrosity, which so adversely affects the local war memorial, if the question of giving priorities is to be considered.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments, but I have walked by the entrances of these deep tube shelters so many times that I feel I have a right to try to convince the Minister that, now we are determining the ownership of these deep shelters, we ought to do something to see that there is a better outlook for those people who have continually to live beside them.
I believe a criticism could be made because of the delay in bringing the Bill forward. It ought to have been submitted a long time ago—and I do not exonerate even previous Governments when I say that. I am only sorry that those who reside in the areas where there are deep tube shelters have not been a little more energetic themselves in bringing pressure to bear in the House for something to be done about them. Nevertheless, we have the Bill here for Second Reading and there is no purpose in pursuing the criticism of delay.
Another question which I might raise is that of the use to which they should be put. I do not go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson), because I have some knowledge of the use to which these deep shelters have been put since the end of the war. On several occasions they have been extremely useful. I remember a difficulty on one occasion when many young people visited us from Europe. The organisations here let them down. There had been an undertaking that lodgings would be provided, but when this host of young people arrived from Europe in Britain for the first time, no accommodation was available for them. The Ministry quickly made available these shelters, and the Government of the day were to be congratulated for using them on that occasion.
I make a plea that we should be imaginative about the future use of these shelters. Do not let us be parochial about it; let us take every opportunity we can to utilise them. That is important, because where there is use there is less deterioration. That is a point quite apart from the social use to which they are put. On Second Reading it might be suggested, therefore, that there should be an imaginative approach to the way in which we use these shelters in the future.
May I say a word about the entrances? These are the ugly ducklings. I often walk from Clapham Common to Stockwell, but although I have been on the road so often I have forgotten its name. Almost in the centre is one of these monstrosities, immediately in front of a new block of flats.

Mr. Gibson: Clapham North.

Mr. Randall: Between Clapham Common and Clapham North.
I am sorry for the people living in those flats, for the drive to the flats goes right round this structure. It is an extraordinary situation, and it seems to me that it ought not to be beyond the wit of the Minister to find some means of camouflaging it. That is the least that could be done. It is a grim cement structure, a monstrosity, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) said. The least that can be done is to camouflage it. I hope that more can be done by completely removing it. I am not an architect, but may I ask whether it is not possible for the whole structure to be lowered to surface level?
I welcome the Bill, and I do not criticise the Government about it, but I hope that the points which I have made, especially about the future use of the shelters and about the entrances, will be dealt with now that we are to determine the ownership.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I, too, do not propose to speak for very long, but I feel that I ought to make a short contribution to the debate because I think I am the only hon. Member present who is a member of that great authority, London County Council. This is a hybrid Bill and the House will know that there will be an opportunity for those who have objections to it to be heard by way of petition. I gather that London County Council will be making certain objections by way of petition to some features of the Bill.
I want to comment on only three matters which I think are appropriate to the Second Reading debate and which, perhaps, may be helpful when the Minister has to consider the objections of London County Council at a later stage. Before touching on those points,

may I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on his very agreeable maiden speech? I hope that all the passages he has may be as smooth, but I am not at all certain that that will be the case when we deal with other subjects later.
The first question is that the structures as buildings are quite appalling in appearance, and I do not think anyone would attempt to defend them. It is clear that not only are they obnoxious in appearance, but all of them are in extremely prominent positions. So long as they remain not only are they most unpleasant to those who work or live in the neighbourhood, or take their recreation near them—being in open spaces, some are just where people do take recreation—but they are likely to have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the district and on the value of property. Therefore, I hope that we may get some indication from the Parliamentary Secretary that it is possible either that in due course these structures may be removed, or that they may be modified or concealed.
I should have thought that on an occasion of this kind the Minister might have agreed to put a provision in the Bill that surface structures would be dealt with within a period of five years, or, if that is not possible, a provision that an extension of time for them to remain would be required from the House. As there is no kind of guarantee of that in the Bill, these structures may drag on in existence, with all their unpleasing qualities, for a very considerable time. We unfortunately know what happens when no special responsibility is put on a Minister to get something done. In view of our past experience about these surface structures, I hope the Minister will agree that there should be some time limit to their remaining, or, if not, that there should be provision for an extension of time to be granted by the House.
The second point I wish to raise has been referred to already by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). That is the structure at Whitfield Gardens. The open space of Whitfield Gardens is in two portions and the surface structure occupies almost the entire portion of one of the two pieces. It is an area in the Tottenham Court Road which is notably


deficient in open spaces. Now that the Ministry is acquiring the ground, I should have thought it would be the usual practice, and highly proper in this case, for the offer of an equal amount of ground somewhere else to be made to London County Council.
In the emergency of the war, no one contemplated that this open space, or its equivalent, should be permanently lost to the area. Those hon. Members who know the district will realise that as it is short of any kind of recreational space it is of first-class importance that some compensatory gesture should be made. I hope we shall hear something from the Parliamentary Secretary on that suggestion.
The last point is in connection with structures at Clapham High Street and Clapham Park Road, which have been already mentioned. I want to refer to them in connection with road widening. The Minister will know that road widenings are contemplated in both those places. There should be provision in the Bill to require the Minister to remove the whole or part of the shelter entrances when the widening takes place. The expense of that work should not fall on London County Council or any other highway authority. I hope we shall have some information—better still, agreement—about payment for the removal of the structures for road widening, which is quite customary in acquisitions of this type by a Government Department.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has expressed the views of my colleagues on these benches about the Bill. I rise to express a point of view concerning my constituency. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) pointed out, one of these structures is in my constituency and it is in a particularly prominent place, where it is seen daily by tens of thousands of people. For that reason it is a greater public nuisance than many of the others. I refer to the structure on the Stockwell War Memorial Garden. That is a very small garden at the intersection of two important roads, the South Lambeth Road and Clapham Road. Apart from the structure it contains a war memorial.
Everyone agrees, and the Minister admitted, that these structures are extraordinarily ugly. They are 40 ft. in diameter and about 20 ft. high. They are dirty, grey and grim. They have sprouting out of them dingy little brick sheds and they make the whole of the surroundings extraordinarily dreary and unattractive. This little garden ought to be—I am sure would be if Lambeth Borough Council had its way—a most attractive spot. It is in a position of considerable importance and seen by many people daily. It could be turned into a delightful open space, giving a pleasant view to all who passed by and with a seat or two placed there, it could be a restful, if rather noisy, place, where people might like to sit on a summer's day—old-age pensioners and others.
It is a really ghastly sight, but the borough council cannot do anything about it at all. There is the war memorial, this hideous structure and a few square yards of grass around them where, according to my observation, the mangiest cats in the neighbourhood foregather. Not even a decent cat will go there, so depressing is the area.
I do not suggest that it is practicable for the Government, when they acquire this structure, among others, to do anything about it immediately. I realise that the expense of pulling it down and making some alternative arrangements would be substantial. The resources and manpower involved would be considerable. Indeed, I would oppose spending those resources and manpower immediately for this purpose when there are so many other urgent purposes, such as housing, which should come first, but I beg the Government to give an assurance to us today that as soon as opportunity permits they will take such action as is possible to remove these structures and restore the area where they stand—I am speaking primarily about the one in my constituency—to a condition in which they can again be an attraction and an amenity to the neighbourhood.
Just opposite this particular garden, on the other side of South Lambeth Road, there is a bit of vacant ground which is considerably bigger than the structure now sited on the garden. It is being used for the sale of old cars. I ask the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, whether he cannot immediately make a


survey of the area, buy this bit of ground, whether it is in the market or not, with a view to making the entrance to the tunnel at some later date in this vacant space and effecting a connection with the tunnel under the road.
I have no idea whether that is structurally possible, or what the engineering problems may be. They may be considerable, and the scheme might be expensive. But here is a bit of ground at the moment available, and I ask the Minister to have a look at it, to acquire it if possible with a view to taking action at the earliest opportunity to remove the ugly structure now standing on the gardens, and to make the entrance upon it. As far as I am concerned, if he could give such an assurance I would be satisfied.
I do not ask for a guarantee that all the structures would be dealt with within two or three years; though if he could do so, it would be so much the better. I am not unreasonable, and I only ask for an undertaking that it will be the objective of the Ministry to tackle this problem as soon as it is practicable and deal with the most serious and worst eyesores first. I do not believe there is one much worse than the one in my constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I am putting in my claim, and my hon. Friends can argue that out afterwards.
At any rate, I would be satisfied with such an assurance. After all, the object of the Ministry of Works is to preserve beauty and look after amenities as far as lies within its powers, and it really is the duty of the Government, in taking responsibility for these structures, to assure us that they will deal with them in the way suggested by my hon. Friends and myself at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that we can get such an assurance this afternoon.

4.42 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I think this occasion is almost unique. It is the first time my right hon. Friend has moved the Second Reading of a Government Bill, and it is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of winding up a debate, although I have been at the Ministry of Works for more than two years.
In that time, as the House knows, the Ministry has not produced a solitary Bill. That may well please some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who abhor the modern craze for legislation, though I am not so sure about the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), who shadows my right hon. Friend. To any politician who has blood coursing through his veins—especially when it is red blood—it must be an occasion of bleak despair. And when we eventually are faced with this hybrid, cross-bred mixture of a Public Bill and a Private Bill which has little of controversy and even less of politics in it.
I shall be very brief, without, I hope, being discourteous to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have contributed so pleasantly to this discussion. Perhaps I may, first, bring the Measure back into perspective. There are seven of these tunnels held on requisition by the Ministry of Works. Sooner or later, powers of requisitioning will expire, and, accordingly, the Government must either acquire the tunnels or abandon them. If they were to abandon them altogether, there would be risk of damage to property and especially of damage to the tube railways, which run close to them. Therefore, we have either to maintain the tunnels or alternatively to fill them in. In the long run, we cannot do either unless the tunnels are under Crown ownership. The reason for the Bill can be stated as simply as that.
It is true that some of the tunnels may eventually be taken over by the British Transport Commission, and it is conceivable that all seven may have other uses, some of which were referred to by my right hon. Friend and some of which were suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall). Even if, however, they eventually become white elephants, the Crown must sooner or later acquire them, and the only question before the House is whether or not the Bill does the job in the right way.
I should like to turn to some of the points which have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Rossendale, who initiated the debate for the Opposition, complained about slipshod administration in the Ministry of Works and in the Home Office. I am bound to say that I thought this criticism a little simulated, and I did not see a great deal in it. The


position is simple. The Government are anxious to do away with emergency powers, and, with their imminent disappearance it is natural that the Government should want to acquire legal title to these shelters. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would have been better if the Government had acquired these properties individually. There are. in fact, very considerable difficulties in the way of doing that, to some of which my right hon. Friend has referred.
The hon. Gentleman also questioned the differences in the estimates of the cost of maintenance. He said that the annual cost given in the Select Committee's evidence was £15,000, whereas according to the Bill the figure is £30,000. The figure of £15,000 was, of course, suggested some years ago, and I assure the hon. Member that the figure of £30,000 has been very carefully calculated and is as accurate as we can possibly get it.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the encroachment of the surface buildings on common land in various parts of London. It is true, as he implied, that as a general rule any Government Department which takes common land attempts to replace it by adding other land to the common. That has been the case for common land taken over during the war with use as airfields and so forth.
In the case of the Clapham South tunnel entrance, which encroaches on Clapham Common, I think the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) would be the first to admit that it is not a serious encroachment. It is on the edge of the Common, and, moreover, it is not the only encroachment. Public conveniences have been constructed there by the local authority alongside the surface works themselves. It might be possible for my right hon. Friend to acquire certain of the properties that stand on the Common, and throw the vacant land into the Common. There is, for example, a public-house on the Common. That, however, would be a very expensive venture, and I do not think we can commit ourselves to it.
Many hon. Members have rightly referred to the unsightliness of these structures. They are indeed very unsightly, and if I were a constituent of the hon. Member for Clapham or of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), I too would feel rather sore

about the seemingly perpetual existence of these ugly buildings in the heart of a peat city. However, we must see these things in perspective. If we were concerned only with the options held by the British Transport Commission on these shelters, it might have been possible to do something at once about the surface buildings. I understand that the British 'Transport Commission does not intend to construct new stations at the present entrances if they take up the options on the four shelters south of the river.
The point I should like to emphasise is that so long as there is any possible use for the shelters in an emergency, we must have both entrances to each shelter. If the time should come, as we all hope it will, when there is no possibility that these shelters will be required in an emergency, we could probably make do with only one entrance at each shelter for the purpose of maintenance.
That is not to say that my right hon. Friend is not entirely sympathetic to what has been said about the appearance of these structures, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall certainly look at the surface building which adjoins the Stockwell War Memorial, and also that at Whitfield Gardens, to see if we can do anything to improve their appearance. In saying that, I should like the House to understand that I am not giving any assurance that it will be possible to remove these surface works in the immediate future. All I am saying is that my right hon. Friend has sympathy with the views that have been expressed and will do all he can.

Mr. Gibson: Coupled with that assurance, will the hon. Gentleman agree that the two examples which I mentioned are urgent?

Mr. Bevins: I was coming to that. As the hon. Member mentioned, there have been difficulties between the highway authority and the Ministry of Works about the Clapham Common tube, which is interfering with a road development plan at Clapham Park Road. A suggestion has been made, I think by the London County Council, that my right hon. Friend ought to acquire the church and the public house on the other side of the road, with a view to conveying them to the highway authority. I am afraid that that would be a very expensive proposition indeed.
There may be an alternative, perhaps by making a diagonal cut through and leaving the surface works as a roundabout in the middle of the road. I should not like to commit myself, but my right hon. Friend and I have been to see this tube and it may be possible by the exercise of a little ingenuity, to reach an accommodation with the highway authority. I hope that I have dealt with most of the points raised in the course of the discussion. I do not want to raise any hopes which my right hon. Friend cannot fulfil. The Bill is necessary in the circumstances of today, but I assure the House that we are mindful of the interests of the people of London and we will have regard to the views expressed.

Mr. E. Partridge: Although there is concern, we are not so much concerned while properties still remain in the possession and under the control of Her Majesty's Government. Our concern is that if the British Transport Commission takes back the tube, in particular at Clapham South, one of the conditions of its taking it back will be to remove the entrance from Clapham Common. If it is to use the tube as a store, it will have its own entrance at Clapham South Station. It is the reinstatement of the Common when it goes out of the possession and control of the Government that is our concern.

Mr. Bevins: If the Commission should exercise its option on that tunnel, it would not build a new tube station on the Common. It would be satisfied with its present station. As my right hon. Friend already owns the freehold of the other entrance to the tunnel, the buildings on the Common could be removed.

Mr. Skeffington: Have the Government given any consideration to inserting a five-year time limit in the Bill? It is very important that the shelters should be dealt with by a certain time, failing which we should be asked to extend the period.

Mr. Bevins: I am very sorry, but I cannot give an undertaking of that sort, because, as I have made clear, there is a possibility that the tubes might be of value in certain circumstances and that possibility might still exist after more than five years.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection:

Any Petitions against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fifth sitting day after this day in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petition is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House:

Any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the prayer of his Petition, to be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents, upon his Petition provided that such Petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in Charge of the Bill to be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against such Petition;

Power to report from day to day Minutes of Evidence:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Orders of the Day — UNDERGROUND WORKS (LONDON) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to vest in the Minister of Works certain underground works constructed in London during the recent war as air-raid shelters, together with other works connected therewith and land adjacent to those works; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the said Minister under or by virtue of the said Act and any expenses incurred by him in maintaining the shelters and other works to which the said Act relates;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the said Minister by virtue of the said Act.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SUGAR BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND PRINCI- PAL FUNCTIONS OF SUGAR BOARD.)

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "Commonwealth."
It is with feelings of kindliness towards the right hon. Gentleman that I move the Amendment, because we want to give him a last opportunity—we gave him a number in Committee—of going back to his original thoughts on this matter which were better and more honourable. During the Second Reading debate he said:
In the Bill, the powers we give to buy sugar extend to sugar from any source and can be applied by general directions of the Minister as well as by a specific direction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 2025.]
When he said that he seemed to be taking a certain pride in what he was doing. That was one of the parts of the Bill and one part of his speech which we welcomed and endorsed.
Now the right hon. Gentleman has gone back on that crystal clear and honourable intention and is trying to stop the Sugar Board from buying the sugar and to limit its powers, even under his control and direction, to buy certain sorts of sugar in the world. There are three sources of sugar which we can purchase. One of them is sugar which we undertake to buy under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Another is preference sugar, that is amounts of sugar grown in the Commonwealth over and above what we buy under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, but which we buy with the advantage of Imperial Preference. Thirdly, there is what one might call free market sugar, though goodness knows there is no free market in sugar in the world today because, outside the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, sugar is very largely dumped on the market at dump prices.
Originally the right hon. Gentleman intended, and the Bill said, that the Sugar Board would have the power, under his direction, to buy all three sources of

sugar. The Bill in its original form stated that absolutely clearly, but now the right hon. Gentleman has gone back on it. I hope that he will use rather less disingenuous arguments to sustain his position and to resist our Amendment, if, unhappily, that is his decision, than he used in Standing Committee, because in Committee he was really trying to say something which was quite indefensible and untenable. He was saying that it was always his intention to limit the Sugar Board to Commonwealth Agreement sugar and that all he was doing in amending the Bill was trying to clarify his intention; but he clearly contradicted his original intention.
5.0 p.m.
There cannot be a clarification if the right hon. Gentleman is restraining the Sugar Board from buying all sugar, as originally intended, and limiting it to buying Commonwealth sugar. That is no clarification but a complete withdrawal and a complete contradiction of the right hon. Gentleman's first position. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a hint on Second Reading of why he was going to make this great contradiction. It was that the sugar interests came to him and told him that he had better make the change.
It was a rather insulting suggestion. They were saying, in effect, that they did not trust the right hon. Gentleman, because the Sugar Board could not buy all sorts of sugar save under the directions of the Minister. Therefore, the sugar interests were saying, "We do not trust this safeguard that the Board cannot do this except under directions. We want an absolute assurance that the Board shall not have this power even under direction." It is a rather insulting suggestion to make to a Minister of the Crown.
The reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has so far advanced for this so-called clarification but in fact contradiction are disturbing. They give rise in our minds, and we fear in the minds of Commonwealth sugar producers, to doubts about the whole status of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That is why we attach very great importance to our Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman, in justifying the Amendment in Committee which we are now trying to negate, in effect was saying that he was making that Amendment because heart and soul


he hated State trading. He kept on saying that. He wanted the maximum of free trade. But the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is a form of State trading. Prices are fixed by negotiations into which the State enters, and throughout the Bill the Sugar Board acts under the directions of the right hon. Gentleman.
There are all sorts of directions, sometimes denying the Board powers and sometimes compelling the Board to do certain things. The State is completely in this, and if the right hon. Gentleman advances as his main ground for resisting our Amendment the fact that he dislikes State trading, he is saying that he dislikes the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, because that is a form of State trading. It is no more State trading to allow the Board to buy other than Commonwealth Sugar Agreement sugar than it is State trading to allow the Board to buy Commonwealth sugar.
If the right hon. Gentleman goes on saying that he does not like State trading and wants free trade, he will cause concern to sugar producers in the Commonwealth, because he will be saying that he is disliking the very thing that he is doing. The sugar producers will not like to hear that. The right hon. Gentleman, in a way which will alarm Commonwealth sugar producers, went out of his way to deprecate and depreciate the Sugar Board. He kept on saying nasty things about it. In Standing Committee, in column 43 on 1st December, 1955, he said that his whole purpose was to limit its functions very narrowly, that is to say it was not going to be a board with any sort of real powers and activities. It was going to have the most extremely narrow functions.
At the second sitting of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman said something even worse:
All that the Sugar Board is, in regard to negotiated Commonwealth sugar,"—
and that, after all, is all that it can buy, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's words refer to the Board in all its aspects—
is an accountancy agency."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th December, 1955, c. 69.]
To set up a Sugar Board which is to carry out the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which the Minister keeps on saying he likes, and then to make it such a poor,

feeble, almost insulting affair as it emerges from his phrases about it, is really not the right way to talk about the instrument for carrying out the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to which not only we but Commonwealth sugar producers attach the greatest importance.
The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman does not conceal that he much prefers free commodity markets to any of these Socialist ideas of long-term purchases from the Commonwealth. He prefers commodity markets where there is no Government control, where there is absolutely free trade and where everybody can make a profit, regardless of any Commonwealth producers' interests or the interests of anybody else.
This Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is the last of the Commonwealth agreements left to us. All the others have been sacrificed on the altar of commodity markets. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear all through the sittings of the Standing Committee that he really prefers the commodity market system to this Commonwealth trading and Commonwealth agreement system. The general idea running through his arguments must alarm people who want to keep this last relic of the fine system of bulk purchase and long-term agreements with the Commonwealth markets which were produced, elaborated and established under the Labour Government and which have been destroyed one by one by the present Government.
If the right hon. Gentleman resists our Amendment, the Sugar Board and, indeed, he and the Government will not be able to do certain things which ought to be enabled to be done. The fact that he is depriving Britain of the power to do these things will alarm Commonwealth sugar producers. We ought to be able to use the purchasing power of the State to do what we can to affect the world price of Commonwealth sugar in the interests of Commonwealth sugar producers in Commonwealth countries and colonies. It is a perfectly proper thing to do and, though we might not wholly succeed, a thing which we should attempt to do; but the Minister cannot now give directions to the Sugar Board to operate in the general free market in such a way as to try and affect world prices so that they shall benefit the Commonwealth sugar producers.
As for the national interest here, leaving aside the Commonwealth for a moment, it is very difficult to see how the Government can now acquire, at any rate easily and simply, strategic reserves of sugar. It would have been very easy, of course, under the original Bill for the Government to acquire strategic reserves, because they could have given specific or general directions to the Board to buy other than Commonwealth Agreement or Commonwealth Preference sugar, but now the right hon. Gentleman, bowing before the interests, has deprived himself, or at any rate the Board, of the power to do this, which would be the natural, obvious and proper way of building up strategic reserves if his or any later Government decided to do so.
As far as I can see, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary will clarify the point, the Board cannot even buy Commonwealth Preference sugar without specific directions from the Minister. The position under the Bill is that even if the Board wanted to buy Commonwealth Preference sugar, it would need a specific direction from the Minister. The Minister, however, has made it clear that he does not like the Sugar Board. Therefore he has said, in effect, that he will not give the Board directions to do this because if he did so the Board would not be as narrowly restricted as possible but would be getting something else to do. So he has said in effect, "The Board cannot do it without my direction, and I will not give it a direction because I want to keep its activities as narrow as possible."
The right hon. Gentleman must realise that Commonwealth sugar producers are extremely apprehensive about the surplus sugar they produce, about the amount they sell under preference but for which they have not got a guaranteed market. This is the part of the Bill which fills them with alarm. It threatens the whole of their sugar economy and sugar industry. This is what will happen if the right hon. Gentleman perversely resists our Amendment, for they too realise that the Sugar Board, the instrument chosen by the Government to help the Commonwealth, is not to be allowed to buy Commonwealth preference sugar. This will really alarm them.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind going back on some of the

things he said upstairs, because unless he does that we shall be left in the position that the producers in the Commonwealth will realise that he is not going to give this Board any wider directions than are absolutely necessary. Therefore he will not give it the directions which he is entitled to give it under this subsection. So, for their surplus sugar over and above the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement quotas, the Commonwealth countries which produce sugar will have to rely on the private importers, since they will not get any aid from the British Government until there is a Labour Government which, of course, would not be bound by the intention of the present Minister to keep the Sugar Board as narrow as possible.
A Labour Government could, and certainly would, be ready to give directions to the Sugar Board to purchase surplus sugar over and above the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, but it is clear that as long as the present right hon. Gentleman is in office, unless he contradicts what he said upstairs, this will not happen under the present Government.
The real reason why we are keen to have this Amendment made in the Bill is that we are trying to restore the Bill to its pristine stage. I do not know what the technical term is, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but this is a re-amendment of the Bill. Why we are keen about it is that we were alarmed to hear so often from the right hon. Gentleman upstairs a fundamental contradiction. Reading the reports of what the Minister said, we find two contradictory themes running through his speeches. One is, "I love the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is a wonderful thing. We shall go on with it in exactly the same way." The other is, "I dislike State trading."
How the right hon. Gentleman reconciles those two, I do not know, because the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is a fine example of the right kind of State trading. However, as long as the Minister continues with that contradiction, he will create apprehension to exactly the same extent as he is trying to allay it in the minds of Commonwealth Sugar producers. They will be encouraged when they read about the Minister loving the Agreement; they will be filled with apprehension when each statement to that effect is accompanied, and undermined,


by a contradictory statement that he hates all forms of State trading which, of course, means the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression generally, and particularly over this subsection, that he regarded the Sugar Board as rather an unfortunate anomaly. In every other case he had managed to get rid of Commonwealth agreements and to substitute commodity markets. It was unfortunate that he could not do that here. He did not like this one thing he was saving, so he was going to make the Sugar Board, the instrument for guaranteeing the policy of this Bill, as narrowly restricted as unimportant, as insignificant as he could. He gave the impression that this was not only the last remnant of Commonwealth agreements, but a precarious one.
It is not so important that there are doubts in our minds, but it is important that there are doubts in the minds of Commonwealth sugar producers. The only way that the right hon. Gentleman can remove those doubts, I suggest, is to accept our Amendment. In that way he will make it clear that the Sugar Board will be able to purchase general sugar, not only Commonwealth sugar, and in that way he will go back to his first, better self.

5.15 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. D. Heathcoat Amory): We are starting this Report stage with the intention of being as helpful and conciliatory as possible to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, as I think our future progress will show. I am sorry, therefore, that the first Amendment put down by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite is one which I must ask the House to resist. The difference between us here really arises from our political philosophy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they get the opportunity, like to provide for as much Government trading as possible, whereas we want to provide for as little Government trading as is necessary in the particular circumstances.
It is true that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is a contract between Governments, and we accept that absolutely. We are not doctrinaire about these matters. We accept it loyally, and in this case enthusiastically, and we are always

prepared to consider each case on its merits. Having got that contract, however, we want to ensure that we fulfil the obligations falling on us under it in a way which will involve the least amount of Government routine trading. I think there is a distinction there between the contract itself and the trading which may follow from carrying out that contract. Here we are trying to provide that, by setting up the Sugar Board, direct Government handling of sugar and the trading arrangements will terminate.
I would say once again that to the best of our information the Commonwealth sugar producers are completely happy abut the provisions contained in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) implied that the Government have had a change of heart in this matter and he referred to a contradiction. I assure the House that there is no contradiction.
During the Second Reading debate I indicated what was provided by the Bill which I was presenting to the House. I said I considered that for greater clarification, as our intentions have never changed in this matter, we could with advantage narrow the provisions of this subsection. I proceeded straight away to indicate why I thought so and I said that in due course I would produce an Amendment to that effect.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said, but there is a difference between us here as to the kind of functions we wish to give the Board. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would like the Board to have wide powers and discretion in fixing a policy. We, on the other hand, regard this Board as an executive board with narrow and clearly specified functions. I would remind the House of the purposes of the reserve powers which we are providing here when we give the Board powers, on direction of the Minister, to buy Commonwealth sugar other than Commonwealth negotiated sugar.
I said during the Second Reading debate that we thought the need for these reserve powers to be used was remote because, fortunately, the Commonwealth preference, when added to the assurances that the refiners had given—that they will always give preference to Commonwealth sugar over other sugar—those two


things in themselves are likely always to ensure a ready market for all the Commonwealth sugar available in this country. However, we felt that it was right that we should provide for the possibility that events might turn out otherwise, and that is the sole purpose of the reserve powers which we are proposing to give the Board.
I should like to remind the House once more of the figures. Under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement we accept obligations to take up 1,568,000 tons of Commonwealth negotiated sugar. We also have an obligation to our own sugar beet growers for the products of the present sugar beet acreage which amounts on average to about 650,000 tons. When chose two figures are added together it will be seen that the result nearly amounts to the total required for consumption in this country, which is about 2,500,000 tons per year.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it seemed to him that the limitation which we have here put on the Sugar Board would make it impossible for it to buy sugar for the stockpile. That is not so. It will make it impossible for it to buy other sugar, as principals, for the stockpile, but the stockpile sugar is directly in Government ownership. We should envisage there that if we wished to avail ourselves of the assistance of the Sugar Board to buy sugar other than Commonwealth sugar for that purpose, we should employ it to do so as agents under the provisions of Clause 3 (2, a).
The right hon. Gentleman said that this was the last Commonwealth long-term agreement. That is not so. We still have the Australian meat agreement, which is a long-term agreement.
This is identically the ground which we covered fairly fully in Standing Committee. For the reasons which I expressed then and for the reasons which I have expressed now, we still think it is much preferable, and will lead to much greater clarification, to retain the word "Commonwealth" in the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that under Clause 3 (2, a) he would have power to give directions to the Sugar Board to buy other than Commonwealth sugar. Is that so?

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Then why is the right hon. Gentleman going to such immense trouble to deprive himself of the same power under the subsection with which we are dealing if lower down he takes the same power again? It is difficult to realise what he is up to.

Mr. Amory: In the case that we are discussing now the Sugar Board would normally be buying as principals.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Being specially directed?

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir; as principals.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Or as agents?

Mr. Amory: Or as agents. Clause I would entitle the Board to buy, even when instructed as agents by the Minister, only Commonwealth sugar, I agree, but when we come to Clause 3 a wider power is given to the Board to buy any sugar, as agents, but not as principals, at the direction of the Minister.

Mr. Frederick Willey: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, although he has given us hope that he will improve as we proceed, has started off so badly.
To deal first with his last argument, surely if substantially these powers are provided in a later Clause there would be every advantage in making it clear that there is no conflict between different Clauses. I should have thought that the least the right hon. Gentleman could have done would have been to bring the subsection with which we are dealing into line with Clause 3.

Mr. Amory: We do not want to give the Board power to buy other than Commonwealth sugar as principals.

Mr. Willey: Yes, but the present provision is dealing with the Board in its capacity as either principals or agents, and in any case it has to be in accordance with the general or special direction of the Minister. I do not think the Minister could want any greater safeguard in the present provision. I should have thought that the only conclusion that we can draw from his last remark is that he is wasting our time. He is saying "Because my attention has not been called to an oversight in Clause 3, these powers there reside"—

Mr. Amory: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we discussed the matter fairly fully on Clause 3 in Committee, and I then said, to all intents and purposes, identically the words that I have uttered today.

Mr. Willey: But we know that the Government Amendment to the Clause resulted from representations made by the trade. That confession was made by the right hon. Gentleman in the Standing Committee. It was not some self-revelation on re-reading the Bill but followed representations made by the trade.

Mr. Amory: No change of intention on the part of the Government has taken place as a result of any representation. What took place as a result of representation was that the Government agreed that the Clause could be narrowed to fit our intention.

Mr. Willey: The point I am making is that the Amendment which the Government made followed representations affecting this Clause, and it may well be that those making the representations had overlooked the significance of Clause 3. That being so, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should be illogical merely because trade interests have been casual in their reading of the Bill. I do not want needlessly to pursue the argument but as we have previously said, it represents a major retreat, one of considerable significance, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, the Minister has repeatedly affirmed that the Sugar Board will be no more than an accountancy agency.
Let me approach the matter from another angle. There is another point which we have put to the right hon. Gentleman which does not affect his powers. This point was conceded after debate in the Standing Committee though it was not originally conceded. It is that the prerogative powers to buy sugar still reside with the Minister. That being so, surely there is every validity in our argument that it would be better for the Minister normally to exercise those prerogative powers through a Sugar Board which he has set up.
The Minister has failed to deal with that matter. He has conceded again today that for strategic purposes he will continue to buy sugar. That being so,

I cannot see why he should go out of his way, because representations have been made to him by the trade, to preclude the Board from purchasing such sugar. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have said that in those circumstances there was every advantage in the Board buying the sugar.
For these narrow technical reasons, my hon. Friends and I are very disappointed with the Minister's response. We cannot help feeling that he has bound and committed himself in the consultations that he had with the trade following the publication of the Bill. That is why he is precluded from paying attention in this matter to the arguments which we have plainly put before him.
However, there are other factors which are of rather greater importance and significance. As we have argued, and as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, we are concerned not only with implementing the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, but with supporting the Agreement. For that reason again we think the Board should have wider powers, which the Minister himself originally thought that it should have.
5.30 p.m.
We realise our position under the International Sugar Agreement and the International Sugar Council, and again we think that we shall be giving expression to the fact that we are a good member of the Council if we allow the Board to take these powers and finally, that if the right hon. Gentleman sets a precedent by setting up a nationalised board in commerce, he should show confidence in it and allow it to trade, if necessary in competition with other sugar interests. But in this regard the right hon. Gentleman has proved deaf to our entreaties. He does not deal with the case in substance, but says that he has the powers and that he will deal with this under Clause 3, if he thinks it fit and proper to do so.
We feel that the best and the right thing to do is to make it clear that we have confidence in the Board which the right hon. Gentleman himself is setting up. We think there is nothing wrong in a nationalised board in commerce—if it is felt to be fit and proper to set up such a board—competing with private interests. In any case, we feel


we should make it clear that we intend to take all steps necessary to reinforce and to support the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. For these reasons, I regret that we cannot accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman and I must

advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on this Question.

Question put, That "Commonwealth" stand part of the Bill:

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 180.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[5.32 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Green, A.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Aitken, W. T.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gurden, Harold
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas


Armstrong, C. W.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mathew, R.


Atkins, H. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mawby, R. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Banks, Col. C.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Barber, Anthony
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Moore, Sir Thomas


Barlow, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Barter, John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Neave, Airey


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Harmar


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Osborne, C.


Black, C. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Page, R. G.


Body, R. F.
Howard, John (Test)
Partridge, E.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Bryan, P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pott, H. P.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Powell, J. Enoch


Burden, F. F. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hutchison, Sir James
Raikes, Sir Victor


Cole, Norman
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Rawlinson, Peter


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robertson, Sir David


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crouch, R. F.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Russell, R. S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Dance, J. C. G.
Kaberry, D.
Sharples, R. C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Keegan, D.
Shepherd, William


D' Avigdor- Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Soames, Capt. C.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, J. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kirk, P. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lagden, G. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (R'm'd)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Leavey, J. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Duthie, W. S.
Leburn, W. G.
Storey, S.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Studholme, H. G.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fisher, Nigel
Llewellyn, D. T.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Foster, John
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Freeth, D. K.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Touche, Sir Gordon


Gibson-Watt, D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turner, H. F. L.


Glover, D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Godber, J. B.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vane, W. M. F.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gower, H. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wade, D. W.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)




Wall, Major Patrick
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)
Woollam, John Victor


Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)



Water house, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Wood, Hon. R.
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Greenwood, Anthony
Parker, J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grey, C. F.
Paton, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pearson, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, W.
Peart, T. F.


Anderson, Frank
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hastings, S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bartley, P.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Randall, H. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Rankin, John


Bonn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Holmes, Horace
Reeves, J.


Benson, G.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Reid, William


Beswick, F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Rhodes, H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, W. R.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs. S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Steele, T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
King, Dr. H. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Callaghan, L. J.
Lawson, G. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Carmichael, J.
Ledger, R. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingler, S. T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. O.


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Corbet, Mrs. Francis
Logan, D. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thornton, E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacColl, J. E.
Timmons, J.


Cronin, J. D.
McGhee, H. G.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Crossman, R. H. S.
McGovern, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McInnes, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Daines, P.
McLeavy, Frank
Watkins, T. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Mahon, S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
West, D. G.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wheeldon, W. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Delargy, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Mikardo, Ian
Willey, Frederick


Dye, S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Monslow, W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)




Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Moss, R.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Moyle, A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Winterbottom, Richard


Fernyhough, E.
Oswald, T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Finch, H. J.
Owen, W. J.
Woof, R. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Padley, W. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Forman, J. C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gibson, C. W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Mr. Deer and Mr. Short.


Gooch, E. G.
Pargiter, G. A.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out from "The" to the end of line 26 and to insert:
price at which the Sugar Board sell sugar, which they have purchased as principals, shall be such as appears to the Board to be the best price reasonably obtainable for the sugar, having regard to the date of delivery and the other terms and conditions of the sale.

This Amendment refers to the price at which the Sugar Board should sell the Commonwealth negotiated price sugar that it takes over on behalf of the Government. We have tried to meet a criticism from the Opposition that the words we had included in the Bill were rather abstruse. I said in Committee upstairs


that our intention was that the Sugar Board should sell at the best market price obtainable and that we would try to see whether we could find alternative words which might be more acceptable to the House. We have tried, and the Amendment contains the new words. They are, at least, slightly less abstruse, and they seem to me to explain our purpose that the Board should sell at the best price obtainable. I hope the Opposition will feel that we have done our best to meet them in this respect.

Mr. Willey: We are delighted and jubilant. This is a great success. I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth too much, but when we appealed to the Government to withdraw these words they divided the Committee. My last words—as usual, conciliatory—were an appeal to the Government to reconsider the wording, and they have been quite right to do so.
This is a major triumph for the Opposition, because the Parliamentary Secretary, as he will remember, fought desperately for the words in the Bill. He regarded them as key words. I hope that with the withdrawal of the gabble of meaningless words, as we described them, have gone the theories which accompanied them of a floor price and of the temporary aberration of the Board. The new words are certainly a considerable improvement and justify our protracted and prolonged discussion upstairs.

Mr. Sidney Dye: While I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's change of heart on subsection (6) and his desire to meet the arguments which we used upstairs, apparently without effect then but with effect now, I am glad that he has used the interval since the Committee stage to alter the words in the Bill. In reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings in Committee, I am confirmed in my recollection that the right hon. Gentleman was adamant to the end in defending the words which he now proposes to replace. In view of our long arguments, which at the time seemed unavailing, it is only right for me to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest any subsequent alteration to the wording.
5.45 p.m.
Here we come up against the difficulty of the sale by the Board of the sugar

which it has purchased. The weakness that will arise throughout the Board's career will be that in times of plenty it will have difficulty in selling its sugar at a reasonable price. It is a difficulty which arises from the situation created by the Minister in refusing our previous Amendment to give the Board wider powers. The powers of the Board have been restricted to the purchase of certain sugar only, big business being left to buy cheap sugar elsewhere.
Although the Amendment represents an improvement in defining the duties of the Board in its disposal of the sugar, it does not remove the fundamental weakness in the set-up of the Board that at certain times it will have the greatest difficulty in selling its sugar. We are pleased that the Minister has seen the need for this change of wording but we wish he had gone further and given the Board wider powers so that it could act more effectively in times of trade difficulty.

Mr. George Jeger: I am pleased that the Minister has at last seen the light. Having read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings in Committee to refresh my memory, I cannot find that the Minister gave any indication whatever that he might have second thoughts. Both he and the Parliamentary Secretary stood out for the original wording of the Clause and withstood our atttempts to resist it. I am glad that he has had second thoughts and that our arguments in Committee have had some effect upon him.

Mr. Amory: They have had a delayed effect.

Mr. Jeger: In that case, the Minister encourages me to suggest that if these proceedings were deferred for another few weeks, we would permit him to have delayed reactions to our other suggestions. We are pleased to see the Amendment and we can take full credit for it. When the same issue was discussed in Committee, it was one of the numerous occasions when not one Member on the Government side opened his mouth either to support or to criticise the point of view that the Minister put forward.

Mr. Gordon Walker: While I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his delayed action, I hope he realises what he is doing. In Standing Committee, as


is reported in column 107 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he was quite clear as to the effect of the Amendment that was being discussed. He said:
The object of this Clause"—
that was, in its earlier form—
is to do exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member"—
that was, my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger)—
desires.…The whole object of this provision is to ensure that the Board sells the sugar at the current market price.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
It is because we want to limit the operations of the Board that we have provided these words"—
words which he is now abandoning. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say these very significant things, and I think that they should be on the record of the House and not only on that of the Committee. He said:
Were we to adopt the words of the Amendment"—
that is, roughly speaking, the words which he is now adopting—
it would, as the hon. Gentleman has said—and he could not have put it more succinctly—defeat our object because it would widen the scope of the operations of the Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8.th December, 1955; c. 107.]
We are very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has now defeated his own object, because that is what he said would be the effect of doing what he has now done. Therefore, he is really making a rather major concession.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be left with the impression that the action had been delayed too long, because if he will look at the report of the next sitting of the Committee, he will find that my right hon. Friend said:
After meditating on that"—
the words of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)—
we felt that we want to do everything we can to satisfy hon. Members opposite that our choice of words is the best which can be devised to define the functions which we desire, and so I shall be glad to have a look at those words again before the Report stage to see whether we can devise a simple and less ab-

struse form of words. If we can, we shall substitute them; if we cannot, if we still feel that the present words are the best, we must come back and so say on the Report stage and have another shot to convince hon. Gentlemen that those words are sensible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th December, 1955; c. 159.]

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is to be noted that after the right hon. Gentleman had resisted our Amendment because it would defeat his object, he and his hon. Friend not only spoke but voted against the Amendment on the ground that it would defeat their object. We were, of course, quite used upstairs to both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend contradicting themselves from time to time, but here they are contradicting themselves after making speeches and voting. But why should we worry, because this is a very important change. This is one of the points which I took up with the Minister early on when he nailed this particular flag to his mast.
The reason why I am glad that this change has been made is not because it defeats the object of the right hon. Gentleman—that was an exaggeration on his part—but because, first of all, it makes it clear that there is not a free market at all. The reason why these words were in the Bill originally was to "kid" everybody that there was a free market. Now it says simply that the Board shall sell the sugar at the price it thinks proper. There is no attempt at pretending that there is a free market.
We are glad because it makes clear that there is a concealed subsidy to the private enterprise producer. The Board is going to buy dear and sell cheap to the producer. Therefore, it is quite clear that there is a subsidy as a result of what the Government are doing, a subsidy which the State is going to arrange that the private refiners shall draw. Both those things are now clear as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's second, third or fourth thoughts—I cannot now quite make out which—and we are grateful to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO FUNCTIONS OF SUGAR BOARD.)

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, at the end to insert:
Provided that the Board shall not by virtue of this subsection be authorised or required to give advice to the Minister on matters relating


to the performance by the British Sugar Corporation Limited of their functions in relation to the purchase of home-grown beet.
We are never weary of seeking new ways of doing good and trying to meet the views of the Opposition when they seem to us to be good ones. Here is a case where there was really no difference between us in the Committee. It was put to us from the benches opposite—I cannot remember by which hon. Member—that it would be a pity if we in any way broke the direct relationship between the Government and the British Sugar Corporation. We agree with that, and so we have suggested inserting these words to make it quite clear that in matters relating to the production and purchase of homegrown beet it would be inappropriate for the Government to seek advice through the Sugar Board. I hope that the words which we have suggested will seem to all hon. Members to be an improvement.

Mr. Dye: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having accepted the suggestion which I made in Committee—

Mr. Amory: I am sorry. I remember now that it was the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) who raised this matter.

Mr. Dye: —namely, that I wanted to remove any doubt that could possibly exist in the wording of the Bill that would enable the Sugar Board to come between the Ministry and the British Sugar Corporation in the arrangements which already existed between them. I thought then that there was a danger that the Board could be used as an instrument to spy upon the activities of the British Sugar Corporation.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen that, as the wording of the Clause stood, there was the possibility of that happening and that he wishes to remove that possibility. I thank him for it. I should like to say how much I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has done, and also the splendid work which the British Sugar Corporation has done in the past and is still doing in encouraging the development of the sugar-beet industry in this country for the benefit of agriculture and to be a more efficient industry.

Mr. Jeger: I wish to commend the Minister for accepting this Amendment

which we on this side moved in Committee. I note that the meeting of the Committee took place immediately before Christmas. We then expressed Christmas wishes to the right hon. Gentleman, which were heartily reciprocated. It just shows how a little sweetness and light can penetrate to the Minister if he is given a long Recess in which to contemplate Amendments and then to have second thoughts about them and to agree with them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS OF SUGAR BOARD.)

Mr. H. Nicholls: I beg to move, in page 6, line 46, to leave out from "and" to "certify" in line 3, page 7, and insert:
the accounts of the Board for each financial year of the Board shall be audited by auditors to be appointed for that year by the Minister.
(4) No person shall be qualified to be so appointed auditor unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies:—

the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
the Society of Incorporated Accountants;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one hundred and sixty-one of the Companies Act, 1948, by the Board of Trade.
(5) As soon as may be after the accounts of the Board have been audited, the auditors shall transmit to the Minister copies of the statements of account together with their report thereon, and the Minister shall transmit a copy of the statements and of the report to the Comptroller and Auditor General; and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine the statements and report, and may inspect the accounts of the Board and any records relating thereto, and shall.
The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) referred to the Christmas present which he received. I hope that this Amendment will be looked upon as an Easter egg because again in this Amendment we are really meeting the point expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends in Committee.
It will be remembered that we accepted an Amendment to secure that the auditing of the Board's transactions should be


carried out by professional auditors and not by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I said at the time that we accepted the general principle that the auditors should be private auditors and not the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but some doubt was expressed about the extent to which the Public Accounts Committee would be safeguarded if the Comptroller and Auditor-General could not even inspect the Board's accounts and records. We knew that the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General was in touch through the Customs and Excise Department, but it was thought that it ought to have a more direct contact, even though the auditing was being carried out by private auditors.
We were impressed by those arguments, and that is why we have suggested the additional paragraph in this Amendment. The effect will be to give specific authority to the Comptroller and Auditor General to inspect the accounts, even though they have been passed by the outside professional auditors. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by both sides of the House, because it reflects the point of view that was expressed in Committee.

Mr. Willey: As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, we are very anxious to see that the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee are not prejudiced. We have studied the Amendment and we are fully satisfied that their rights are reserved. We appreciate again the action taken by the Government in this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(SUSPENSION OF SURCHARGE.)

6.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I beg to move, in page 14, line 25, to leave out from "the" to "without" in line 26 and insert:
income of the Board, for a period of not less than six months from that time, is likely to be sufficient.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): If it meets the convenience of the House we might consider, with this Amendment, the next three Amendments, which cover the same point; in page 14, line 40, at the end to insert a new subsection (4); in Clause 14, page 14, line 41, after "Where," to insert:
at any time after the appointed day";
and in page 15, line 2, to leave out from

"Board" to the first "the" in line 4, and insert:
for a period of not less than six months from that time, is likely to show a surplus.

Mr. Nicholls: All these Amendments are in substitution of the words "for a substantial period", which appear in the Clause. Hon. Gentlemen who were members of the Standing Committee will know for how long we discussed the meaning of these words, which it was suggested were indefinite and did not reflect what it was felt the Minister meant. We promised to look into them. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) pointed out what administrative, legal and other difficulties would arise if the words were left unchanged.
We always pay much attention to what the hon. Gentleman advises on matters of this kind. Upon things to do with administration he is recognised as one of the authorities in this House. He suggested that references to "a substantial period" in both Clauses should be omitted. We said at the time that we put in those words because we wished to leave it so that the Board had considerable room for manoeuvre in his matter. We wanted to retain as much flexibility for the Board as we could, because it would have all the knowledge and day-to-day information. What we did not want was—I used these words in Committee—
violent and frequent fluctuations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 31st January, 1956; c. 382.]
We felt that that would be the worst thing that could happen.
Having taken into account what the hon. Gentleman said, and having heeded the words that I used, we have been able to put down Amendments which will ensure that before the surcharge is suspended and before the distribution payments are brought into use the district auditor must be sure that the Board can balance its accounts, with the aid of the surcharge, for six months. That seems to be a period which will fit in with the actual working of the Board.
These Amendments put into precise form the way in which we think Clauses 13 and 14 will come into play. We think that is the view which hon. Gentlemen opposite expressed in the Standing Committee. We are concerned that the operations of the Board shall be balanced over a period and not in day-to-day


transactions. The hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago that he had again read the proceedings in the Committee. I also have read them again, and I think the Amendments fully meet the objections put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Willey: Again we are obliged to the Government for the action which they have taken. I am not making any comment about the delayed action, but I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the kind words he said. I hope that as time goes on he will pay equal regard and attention to the broad political considerations that I have put before him.
If he had been as reasonable on other matters as he has been on this we should by now have an excellent Bill. We hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realises that we are constructive in our approach to these matters. Our only complaint is that the Government have not been so open to reason on some of the broader issues of the Bill.

Mr. G. Jeger: Discussion on the Clause took place in the Standing Committee, and it was only when we called into question not merely the common sense but the honourable or dishonourable intentions of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that he was persuaded to have second thoughts about this matter. I am glad to confirm his statement,
My intentions are perfectly honourable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 31st January, 1956; c. 388.]
which he made in the Committee. His intentions in this connection were honourable and he has confirmed that by his action today.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I should not like to give an impression of there having been happy working in the Standing Committee. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary had responded in Committee as he is doing today to many of our proposals, we should have done our work much more rapidly. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary worked in Committee on the basis of "one up and one down," meaning one up for the Government and one down for the Opposition. He continued in that way throughout. The comments which he made in Committee whenever the Opposition presented a formidable case were on the lines of, "We agree with it

in principle, but we should like to give consideration to it," and then he would carry the matter to a Division.
I am glad that the Government now recognise that the Opposition played a very constructive part in Committee. We are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his response this afternoon, and I should like, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to add to the gratitude expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who did such constructive work on this particular proposal. It would be wrong to give the impression that harmony existed in the Committee proceedings, which were unnecessarily protracted because of obstinacy on the Government side of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 40, at end insert:
(4) For the purposes of this and the next following section the income of the Board for any period shall be taken—

(a) to be sufficient, if it is not less than the amount of income required to be earned by the Board in respect of that period to enable the Board to balance their revenue account, and
(b) to show a surplus, if it is more than the amount of income so required to be earned by the Board.—[Mr. H. Nicholls.]

Clause 14.—(DISTRIBUTION PAYMENTS BY SUGAR BOARD.)

Amendments made: In page 14, line 41, after "Where," insert:
at any time after the appointed day.

In page 15, line 2, leave out from "Board" to first "the" in line 4 and insert:
for a period of not less than six months from that time, is likely to show a surplus."—[Mr. H. Nicholls.]

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 15, line 8, to leave out "for an indefinite period or."
I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) that it was on the discussion of this Amendment in Committee that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made his heartrending cry, "My intentions are perfectly honourable." Whereupon, I regret to say, the OFFICIAL REPORT records that the Amendment was negatived. I hope that by giving the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a second opportunity we can assume that the Amendment will now be accepted.
We are here dealing with the distribution payments. We expressed our views in the Standing Committee that an order providing for these payments should be for a specific period. That was resisted by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, for reasons which are as obscure as his last remark on the discussion on this Clause. He said, and we do not dispute this, that distribution payments would arise in circumstances which would be generally favourable to the consumer because they would arise in circumstances in which Commonwealth sugar would be sold below world prices.
That surely has nothing to do with the case. We were not concerned about that at all. We felt it wrong that the Government should, as it were—to quote myself in Standing Committee—legislate
for a permanent unbalance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 31st January, 1956; c. 386.]
They should show that the matter is obviously and probably subject to review.
The other arguments of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary are set at naught by the Bill, which at present provides for an alternative. The Minister can provide in the order for a specific period or for an indefinite period. We felt that it would be better to make the order relate to a specific period in each case. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman will therefore accept the Amendment. There is everything to be said for it.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will have had an opportunity to reconsider what he said in Standing Committee, and to realise that it did not really deal with the point which we put to him that it was better from every point of view to make such an order as this, mainly for distribution payments, one for a specific period. If circumstances justify a continuance of the order, that should be done for another specific period.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) reminded us of our "one up and one down" basis on Committee. Since hon. Gentlemen opposite have so far today had five up and only one down, I do not feel abashed at having to say

that we cannot accept the Amendment which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has just moved.
As he has said, it really repeats the Amendment moved in the Standing Committee, and we did discuss it at great length there. At the time, because we did want to give some thought to the arguments which had been used, I suggested that we would look at the matter again between the Committee and Report stages. I am afraid we cannot accept it even now, after having gone into the matter very carefully and with the greatest desire to meet the proposals of the hon. Gentleman if we could.
We could not even specify a minimum period for the distribution payments, for it is conceivable that in some circumstances such a provision would put the Board in serious financial difficulties. I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that if one ties oneself up to a specific time one might well be saddling oneself with trouble, and I do not think it is fair to a Board not yet established that it should be saddled with problems like that.
Nor can we omit the words entirely, for to do so would place a dangerous restriction on the Minister's discretion. If orders relating to distribution payments or surcharge were made only for specified periods—which, I think, is what the hon. Gentleman wants, if we omit those words—then we should run the risk of dislocation in the trade and also of undesirable speculation as the specified terminal date in the order was approaching. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if there is a specified date, and things are not moving as had been anticipated when that date is approaching, then all sorts of manoeuvres could, and I have no doubt, would, take place. That would be our mistake in making it specific when we ought to have left it open to the Board to judge the position as it saw it when it took over.
I confess that I am only using arguments which I used in the Standing Committee, but they are arguments which, after a most careful examination, we have seen no reason to alter. For that reason I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist the Amendment proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DISTRIBUTION PAYMENTS AND REPAYMENTS.)

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 17, line 26, after "Board ", to insert:
after consultation with the Minister".
This is another case where we are endeavouring to go some way to meet the views of the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) made a point at the end of his remarks when discussing this matter in the Standing Committee. He said he did not feel it was quite right that the Board should have the right, as it were, to over-ride the regulations made by the Minister in this matter. This is a reference to a claim for distribution payment made after the time prescribed by the Minister's regulations for making that claim. We feel that in general a matter like that should be settled at the level of the Board, but we have included the words here,
after consultation with the Minister
and I hope that will meet the views, or go a long way towards meeting the views, of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting us part of the way; he has explained why he could not go the whole way. I think the Minister would be wrong to support the view of his Joint Parliamentary Secretary that a great many concessions are being given to this side of the House. In my own mind I am confident that it is only as a result of very careful consideration that the Government accept these proposals. In one case, although we on this side of the House have been given credit for the Amendment, it was in part the result of what was, I think, the only positive contribution made by any back bencher from the Government side. Nevertheless, the Minister has gone part of the way, and we are grateful to him for that.

Mr. G. Jeger: On this matter again we had considerable discussion in the Standing Committee, and there the Joint Parliamentary Secretary refused to budge an inch. He insisted that the Board was to have discretion even to over-ride the Minister, if necessary. He said that the discretion should be at the level of the

Board. That will be found in c. 392 of the OFFCIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings. Before that, he said:
I do not move from the position which I have argued so far.
I am very glad that the Minister has made him move. If, when the discussion was taking place on our Amendments, there had been a little more cohesion, collaboration, and, perhaps, collusion between the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at that stage, the Minister would not now have to repudiate the words of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Amory: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did say,
I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 31st January, 1956; c. 391 and 394.]

Mr. Jeger: I agree that that was the position into which we forced him because of the common sense and logic of our arguments. Even he was not able to withstand them with 100 per cent. success; he had to give way to a certain extent and promised to consult the Minister. The arguments put forward on that occasion would fully have convinced the Minister himself had he been there, and I am only sorry that he was not and matters were left to the intransigence of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN SUGAR BEET GROWING.)

Mr. H. Nicholls: I beg to move, in page 21, line 17, to leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be convenient if this Amendment were considered together with the Minister's two Amendments to Clause 33, in page 36, line 22 and line 26.

Mr. Nicholls: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. These three Amendments, which are related, are again a result of a promise given in the Standing Committee by my right hon. Friend to look at the position of the affirmative and negative regulations provided for in this Bill. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will have noted that we have met them very, very substantially. I know that they will accept this Amendment.
What happens is that we leave out of Clause 18 the subsection which specifies the affirmative resolution; we are leaving out that subsection and adding it with others later.
The Bill, as it stands, makes all the orders and regulations under it subject to negative resolutions, with the exception of that one. During discussion in Committee, on the basis of the Amendment moved, I think, by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), he asked if we would make all the orders which would flow from this Bill affirmative. I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that in response to his request that all should be affirmative resolutions I did point out the very real practical difficulties which would flow from making affirmative resolutions under Clauses 7 to 16. That might involve us in introducing changes in the rates of surcharge in a way which would not let the scheme work as it is the wish of all sides it should work if our scheme is accepted and the Bill actually passes into legislation.
I said at the time that any orders flowing from Clauses 7 to 16, the Clauses affecting the surcharge, would have to take effect at once; one could not really afford the time lag that would have to be given if affirmative resolutions were made. While that still stands—and I think in Committee the hon. Gentleman accepted it as regards those Clauses concerned with surcharge—we have looked, as we said we would, at our powers under Clause 26.
We did more than that; we looked at Clause 25 and Clause 27 as well. Orders under Clauses 25, 26 and 27 we find we can make subject to affirmative resolutions and not negative resolutions as before.
I do not think there is any need for me to explain at any length the effect of the three Clauses. We are really giving what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends asked, and, on balance, I am quite certain it would be better for Parliament in its actual working.

Mr. Willey: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, we have not obtained all that we expected, but we have obtained a good deal, and we recognise that by these Amendments the Bill is improved, and proper recognition

is made of the distinction between affirmative and negative Motions. We are obliged to the Government for revising their views. As I have said before, I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has a fairly good record and can set a good example to many other Departments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(AGREEMENTS FOR INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO CORPORATION.)

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, in page 22, line 40, at the end to insert:
(5) Any agreement under this section shall provide that the purposes for which incentive payments made under the agreement will be applied by the Corporation will include the provision of benefits for persons employed by the Corporation.
The Amendment gives effect to something on which I think the whole Committee was unanimous. It refers to the incentive payments made to the British Sugar Corporation for increased efficiency. The view of us all was that that would be appropriate, and that it is always appropriate in such cases that some share of the benefits should go to the permanent employees of the concern. In my own experience I certainly have always found that a wise and sensible arrangement. It is one which we all felt should be applied to the Sugar Corporation, and I think that the management of the Corporation would not itself feel otherwise.
We felt it right that the provision should be flexible, because the particular share and the way in which the money should be used would be a question for decision, I think, either by the management or by the management in consultation with the employees. I hope that the House will feel that the Amendment is sensible and appropriate.

Mr. Willey: This is another occasion on which the Opposition can claim to have obtained a very real concession from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that his Parliamentary Secretary said that they must resist us when we proposed such an Amendment in Committee. He said that the difference in method was a very real one. Again, as on the earlier occasion to which we have referred, the Committee had to divide.

Mr. Amory: But the hon. Gentleman will recollect that the Amendment then proposed really covered a great deal more.

Mr. Willey: It covered growers—

Mr. Amory: Yes.

Mr. Willey: —but the difference was one of method, and it was such a marked difference that I said four-squarely that I would make political capital out of this: that if the Government were not prepared to set an example of profit-sharing we would point it out.
Where we were agreed was that the British Sugar Corporation had a very good record. I do not wish to be at all unfair to the Parliamentary Secretary. His argument was that this could well be left to the Sugar Corporation, but we argued that the Government should seize the occasion to show that they were genuine in their desire to provide profit-sharing. It was upon that that the Committee divided. I do not want to say more than that we are very pleased that, by this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman has been able to meet us and not escape, as it were, on a technicality. Whatever difficulties there may be in providing for benefits for the workers under the incentive agreement we felt that the Government should set an example. We are very happy that, on reflection, they have agreed with us and are doing that.
If I may mention one point raised by the Minister, it is true that we argued that this should apply both to workers and to growers. Whilst we should still be prepared to argue a good case for providing a direct incentive payment to growers we appreciate at the same time that there is a much more direct relationship with the workers in the sugar beet factories. For that reason we are very happy to accept the Amendment, and to express our appreciation of the Government for taking this opportunity to show that they are willing to provide for profit-sharing in such circumstances as these.

Mr. Dye: While I share the pleasure of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) in welcoming the Amendment, I have some slight reservations. It is true that when we considered the Bill in Committee it appeared that the only incentive payment proposed

was in relation to increased dividends to those holding shares in the British Sugar Corporation. I felt that that was a weakness; that if incentives were to be given to the Corporation they should be shared by all who had taken part in the work and had aided the efficiency of the Corporation—the workers. I am glad that provision is now to be made for the workers in the Corporation's sugar factories to share in these incentive payments.
The right hon. Gentleman used a qualifying phrase. He referred to the permanent workers of the Corporation. A certain number of permanent workers are employed all the year round by the Corporation at its factories, but the larger number of workers are employed for the beet sugar season—the period from September until, generally, January. It so happens that many of those workers, though employed only for that period are so employed year after year, and the right hon. Gentleman's qualifying words would mean that they would not be allowed to share in any incentive payments.
The whole efficiency of the campaign in the sugar beet industry depends on those people who do the hard work in just that period. They do shift work seven days a week without a break, and unless they keep up with the work things slow down. Those who are permanent workers, who go through the campaign period but have a comparatively easy time for the rest of the year will get incentive payments which have really been earned by those who worked in the campaign season. I should have liked the Amendment to include benefits for those persons. As the system is operated those who work for the campaign only are entitled to holidays but they do not have the holidays. At the end of the period they get money in lieu, but if they do not work to the end of the campaign period they lose that advantage. Therefore, the casual workers are at a disadvantage.
6.30 p.m.
I would much rather have seen them included in some scheme so that if in any season a factory gets through its work, takes in more beet and produces more sugar in the same number of days or even in fewer days, those men should have some incentive payment. If, on the other hand, they take longer over their


work and produce less sugar because of dilatoriness or for any other cause, I can understand that they should not be entitled to any incentive payment.
What I am asking for is that there should be no distinction between the workers, that at all the factories of the Corporation there should be at the end of each campaign an incentive payment or bonus according to merit. That would encourage the employees to work efficiently, to be loyal to their factories and to work as a team, instead of thinking, "If we work extra hours and lose more sweat"—and some of these factories are very hot places indeed—"we are only doing it for the benefit of other workers." That would be unfair.
I should like the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to say that that is not the intention of the Amendment, but that under the Amendment the Corporation will be in a position to negotiate with the trade unions concerned an incentive bonus scheme to cover all the workers at all the factories in such a way that they will share in any increased efficiency to which they have contributed. It may be difficult to get together sufficient men as a team to work in the factories unless we include some such scheme as this. I hope that what the right hon. Gentleman said was not what he really meant, but that we shall have an all-embracing incentive bonus scheme covering, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Committee, all of them from the bottom to the top. All who make that contribution should share in these payments.
It is true that in Committee we also argued for an incentive payment to the growers. That idea has been set on one side, on the ground that they will get their own benefit by the payments which they receive. It was, however, brought to the notice of the Committee that some growers delivered their beet with more dirt tare than others, and that there might be some incentive payment to the growers who sent the least dirt tare with their beet to the factories. I know what interest my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) took in this matter. No doubt, he had every reason for drawing the attention of the Committee to this problem.
I would rather have seen the Amendment drawn still more widely so that in each factory area there could have been some incentive bonus to the growers in addition to their ordinary payment, which would encourage them to deliver cleaner beet to the factories, thus causing less trouble in the working of the factories.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the grower who sends beet with a lot of dirt already has a penalty in that he has to pay for the dirt being carried to the factory?

Mr. Dye: That is not a penalty. That is the ordinary transaction under the contract. I admit that when that sort of beet is delivered it causes trouble to the Corporation.
Although I should have preferred to have seen a wider Amendment than this, I am grateful to the Government for having gone so far as they have, and I hope the result will work to the benefit of the Corporation as well as to the men.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I was not a member of the Standing Committee and, therefore, I feel like an interloper in taking part in this debate, but I must say that I have heard with surprise of the limitation which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) thinks is placed upon the Amendment. It is only right that the Minister should be asked to clarify the position.
As I read the Amendment, the interpretation appears to be that the proposed new subsection is not only wide enough but is intended to include the very persons about whom my hon. Friend appears to be apprehensive. It is clear from the terminology of the proposed subsection that it includes all
persons employed by the Corporation.
There are no exceptions whatsoever. It seems to me that the limitation about which my hon. Friend is apprehensive is non-existent. However, as this matter has been mentioned and as there may, therefore, be misapprehension and misconception about the operation of the subsection, I should like the Minister of the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm what I am sure is the legal result of this language.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I must first say that I would never look upon the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) as an interloper in any circumstances whatsoever. He said that he had not heard the argument in Committee. It was suggested in Committee that the growers and the workers should be included, but I think we have disposed of the growers in this context. It is clear that they are taken care of separately.
As for the employees, there is nothing in the words which exclude the workers to whom the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) has referred, but it is a matter which will be left to the management. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the workers are not specifically excluded and any misapprehensions that he may have had on that score are without foundation. As I said in Committee, we must leave it to the management to decide how they are to work out the schemes. They work very closely with the trade unions, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In that industry they work as partners, and on the pension schemes and such matters the management have worked in mutual understanding with the unions. Therefore, the apprehensions which the hon. Gentleman may have felt about these words need not be felt any longer.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.—(DEFAULT POWERS OF MINIS TER IN RELATION TO SUGAR REFINING AGREEMENTS.)

Mr. H. Nicholls: I beg to move, in page 28, line 45, at the end to insert:
as the Minister may consider appropriate in the circumstances.
When we were discussing Clause 26 in Committee we accepted an Amendment moved by the Opposition which made it mandatory upon the Minister to do certain things, and in accepting it I said that I was sure it would be appreciated that it would make necessary some consequential drafting later. This Amendment flows from that. It is consequential upon the Opposition Amendment moved in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I beg to move, in page 29, line 30, after "who" to insert "in his opinion."
In Committee we had a debate, which waxed loud and long, on what was meant by the words:
… a substantial interest in the market …
as they are used particularly in subsection (3). Hon. Members opposite asked us to make clear, if this were the case, that it would be for the Minister to decide what was in fact a substantial interest.
My right hon. Friend said that the difficulty of defining the word "substantial" had arisen on many occasions, and it is no doubt within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, who has had to pilot many matters through this House, that the word "substantial" is one which always causes difficulty if people want to frame a speech around something or other. My right hon. Friend promised to look at the matter again to see if words needed to be added to make the intention clear.
We have looked at this again because it is an important point, and the proviso in which it occurs gives the Minister power to refuse to approve an agreement without notifying the parties of the modification if he finds that certain refiners did not take part in the original agreement. He can hardly send it back to them to ask them to modify something which they did not enter into in the first place. If they can prove that they have had discussions with one another and have come to a conclusion that is not satisfactory to the Minister, he can send it back with modifications, but in those circumstances he has to give at least a month's notice. Where the refiners did not take part, in the original discussions, there is no need to give a month's notice. We have looked at this matter again and we had decided that the only thing that we can do with the connotation of "substantial" in this context is that it should be a matter for the Minister and therefore we propose the Amendment.
I think that the Amendment meets very largely the point which hon. Gentlemen put in Committee, and I should like to thank them for their suggestions which I hope will make this operate much better when the Bill comes into effect.

Mr. Willey: We certainly accept that this is an improvement. It will prevent


lawyers from arguing what is "substantial" and, on the whole, that will probably be an advantage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27.—(LIMITATION OF SUGAR REFINERS' MARGIN.)

Mr. Bottomley: I beg to move, in page 32, line 23, after "reasonable" to insert:
and in determining what he considers reasonable the Minister shall have regard to any expenses incurred by refiners in the display or other use of advertisements affecting sugar.
I should make clear that I am not one of those who think that advertising does not serve a useful purpose. In given circumstances there is a lot to be said for advertising. When we make an appeal lot increased production that is good advertising. It is also good advertising when we suggest an increase of our exports or make an appeal for National Savings. There are many ways in which we can put forward claims for advertising.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Vote for Labour.

Mr. Bottomley: I am very glad to have the support of the hon. Member opposite who thinks that "Vote for Labour" is good advertising. I think so too, and I am glad to have his co-operation.
Sugar is not something that really requires advertising. We know that sugar in itself is sweet and is a necessity. The Minister, in the Standing Committee, said that he could not tell the difference between sugar from sugar beet and refined sugar. He was challenged at the time, and he said that he was not quite certain. I am quite sure that by now he has had the opportunity of making certain tests and he is probably of the same opinion—that he cannot tell the difference. Therefore, it seems to me that if advertising is suggested, any such suggestion ought to be well looked at and that we can say that in the case of sugar it might be done away with altogether, particularly when it can be argued that we know that much of the advertising is done at the expense of the Inland Revenue as one way in which Income Tax can be avoided; but it adds to the liabilities of the State and loss of income which might otherwise help to reduce the already too heavy taxation which we have to pay.
6.45 p.m.
Advertising, too, is a means of using up money. When an undertaking finds itself making tremendous profits it can engage in a form of advertising as a way of diminishing returns. So far as sugar is concerned, the profits are as high as it is possible for them to be. One must assume that, judging by the number of sugar refiners engaged in private trade who die millionaires. I was once asked how it was possible to be a millionaire, and I said, "You either charge your consumers too much or you pay your workers too little." In the case of this industry, I think that advertising is something that is not necessary. In order to evade Income Tax and cover up profits, increased payments could be made to the workers or the consumers could be charged less.

Mr. Osborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember what Mr. Ford did in America?

Mr. Bottomley: Advertising, if allowed in the case of private refiners, gives them an advantage over the British Sugar Corporation. As we know, the Corporation is restricted in its sales of sugar. If it is a question of special sugar, even if it happens to be granulated sugar, the Corporation has not the opportunities to market it and to sell it, and, therefore, to the extent that private interests can advertise and have this advantage over the Corporation, it puts the Corporation in a less favourable position.
We know that advertising is not used exclusively for selling sugar. The Labour Government were a victim of a great campaign—"Mr. Cube," who was against nationalisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is wrong that firms should be able to do that while evading their taxation responsibility. I would say to hon. Members who say "Hear, hear" that the present Government are in difficulties at the moment. I think that they ought to consider this matter very seriously. The refiners might at this moment start a great campaign to stop the inflationary drive. They might even go further and attack, as some of the back benchers opposite have done, nationalised industry and other industries which are doing their best to secure the economic recovery of the country. I was glad that this afternoon the Prime Minister himself rebuffed those


reactionary supporters of the Government who take that view.
I would say, for these reasons, that the Amendment which we are moving in connection with the limitation of the sugar refiners' margin is one which we think is necessary, and I think that the Minister, if he has listened carefully to my concluding comments, will agree that it is a safeguard for himself as a Minister and for the Government in carrying out their national obligations.

Mr. Amory: I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) that I often find myself wholly in agreement with him, almost on occasions to the point of political embarrassment, because I think he is essentially a wise man, if I may say so; but I cannot quite agree with him in his reasons, if they were meant to be conclusive, why people become millionaires. I think that there are notable cases of people having become millionaires because they were quite exceptionally efficient and were able to offer the public better value than any of their competitors—but that is almost in parenthesis.
I am not quite clear as to what the supporters of this Amendment mean by "having regard to." It could mean, on the one hand, that advertising expenditure should be allowable as an element in costs, or, on the other, that it should be excluded. I think that it is the latter that is meant. I would mention, apropos of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the British Sugar Corporation is not excluded from selling any type of sugar it wishes to sell, granulated or any specialised product. If it wishes, it can do so. It is entirely a question for decision by the management of the Corporation.
Here, however, we are dealing with the margin allowed for a certain process, that of refining, turning the raw sugar into refined sugar in bulk, and only up to the stage where the refined sugar is put into large sacks—I am not sure of their weight, though I think it is 2 cwt.—for subsequent sale.

Mr. H. Nicholls: It is 2 cwt.

Mr. Amory: We are not dealing with the later stages of packaging or anything else. The margin which is allowed is composed of two elements, one element

being the main one for costs and then there is the element of profit which is considered appropriate for the process or processes covered. I would repeat what I said at an earlier stage, that with regard to costs there is in this margin no element of advertising expenditure allowable. With regard to the element for profit allowable on these processes, it is entirely up to the concern what it spends its profits on.
I hope that that explanation will lead the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to feel that the Amendment would not be appropriate to the profit margin that we are considering, which refers to the comparatively early stage in the provision of sugar for the public. The question of advertising does not fall to be considered at that stage.

Mr. Dye: In supporting the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), I must say that the Minister's speech fell short of what we expected.
We are here dealing with what is to be taken into consideration in regard to the profit margins to be allowed to the refiners. We have to view this in the light of the fact that the country is divided into zones for the sale of the products of the British Sugar Corporation and Messrs. Tate and Lyle and that it is almost impossible in certain areas to buy granulated sugar produced by other than the concern supplying those areas.
The question therefore arises as to the amount and type of advertising in which the concerns can indulge and whether in estimating the margins of the refiners the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the national or zonal advertising in which the two undertakings indulge. The question obviously arises out of past experience. At the time of the 1951 General Election Messrs. Tate and Lyle engaged in a big advertising campaign not for the sale of its sugar but in relation to political objectives.

Mr. Amory: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that this has nothing whatever to do with the margin referred to in the Clause, which, as I have explained, is a refiner's margin for producing the sugar in bulk up to the stage where it is sold to anyone at a uniform price in 2 cwt. sacks. The question of


advertising does not arise until a much later stage, and the Clause has nothing to do with the later stages.

Mr. Dye: I appreciate that point. Nethertheless it is the same firm which is involved. It is not my understanding that the profits of the firm, when they are calculated, are allocated to different sections of its production; that is, the profit is allocated for one section and no account is taken of another section of the firm's undertaking. It seems to me that it would be possible for the firm to be allowed a small margin of profit on the refining of sugar and to make up for it by an extra large profit on the sale of sugar. It may well be that the Bill is not sufficiently clear and decisive in restricting the activities of such an undertaking as Messrs. Tate and Lyle so that it cannot take from its profits money with which to conduct a political campaign.
It is undesirable that we should leave the Bill in this state when in future part of the country being supplied with sugar by Messrs. Tate and Lyle might be subject to a political advertising campaign of one sort, and another part of the country being supplied by the British Sugar Corporation might be subjected to a campaign along entirely different lines, there perhaps being in power a Labour Government having some influence with it. We seek to remove the possibility of sugar refiners using any of their profits for political purposes or any purpose apart from the business of refining sugar and selling it to the general public.
It is because of the zoning of the country and the monopolistic nature of the sale of sugar that we seek in future to limit any extra activities which these concerns might undertake. Because of past experience, we want to ensure that in future the industry will be free from such activities. That seems to be a laudable object which I should have thought hon. Members on both sides of the House would have accepted. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say, "We share your object, but this is not the right way to achieve it. At a later stage in another place we will try to meet your purpose." If he will say that, I am sure there will be unanimity in the House, but if we allow this Bill to pass with this possibility for the future, then we

shall be doing less than justice to this industry. This is a controlled industry which supplies every household in the land with a commodity every week and we would be leaving it open to other industries to carry out similar propaganda—the milling industry and others. We should then have allowed democracy in this country to reach a stage which would be most undesirable.
7.0 p.m.
Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters to give consideration to this point. We tried to put it in Committee upstairs. We aimed at removing the possibility for the future. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept our Amendment because it is in the wrong place or because it uses the wrong words, I hope he will say that he agrees with its intention. I hope that before we part with this Bill we shall have an assurance that the Government will give consideration to this point in another place.

Mr. G. Jeger: When we were discussing a previous Amendment which the Minister agreed to accept, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the way in which his mind worked and talked about delaying action. I think that on this Amendment also there has been a little delaying action; but the delay has not been long enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) suggested that perhaps a more suitable form of wording might be acceptable and that the Minister might carry the intentions into effect when the Bill goes to another place. The Minister has shown a certain amount of sympathy with our idea that advertising on sugar cartons is undesirable. In fact, in Committee, he went out of his way—I believe on two occasions—to give an undertaking that no element of advertising would extend beyond the 2 cwt. bag of sugar and that therefore the "Mr. Cube" political advertising to which we were subjected in the past would not be an element of costing when the price of granulated sugar was calculated.

Mr. Amory: I must correct the hon. Member. I said that no element of advertising would be allowable in the calculations of the margin to cover cost in the refining stage. I said nothing about any later stage, because that is not subject to control.

Mr. Jeger: That is quite right. I was confirming what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the later advertising would not enter into the cost which was being calculated and that therefore the calculation of cost would stop short at the 2 cwt. bag. But there are other forms of advertising which have been indulged in by the refiners and distributors which do not really affect the small packet with "Mr. Cube" and some political slogan printed on it. There is advertising in the Press and on hoardings and posters, all of which is concerned not merely to sell the packet but the product as a whole. Consequently, that element of advertising which can hardly be divorced from the small packet advertisement is one which would enter into the prime cost of the refining and distributing and would be an element on which the marginal profit would be allowable.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again on this question and to take the opportunity of the Bill going to another place to fulfil the promise he made in Committee upstairs that advertising would not be a constituent part but that he would exclude it at every stage irrespective of where it takes place—whether it is political advertising on the carton or packet, or is advertising on hoardings or in the Press.

Mr. Osborne: I wish to challenge one thing which was said by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) in justifying the Amendment. Whether or not the profits of refiners are too large I do not know, but, if I took down the words of the right hon. Member correctly, he said that enormous profits had been made in this industry and, therefore, the profit margins were too wide because, he said, so many of those engaged in it died as millionaires.
He went on to justify that and I thought it was the weakness of his justification which should be refuted. He said that when a few years ago he was asked how one became a millionaire he replied that there were two ways—either one paid one's workers too little or charged the customers too much. To allow that statement to go out from this House without being challenged would be wrong.
May I ask the right hon. Member to bear in mind three classical cases? There

was the case of Henry Ford in America, who paid the highest wages ever known and sold his goods at the cheapest prices. In this country Lord Nuffield did exactly the same and, only two years ago, the Chairman of the Woolworth organisation, in which millions have been made, stated that if each article had been sold at ½d. less than the price at which it was sold there would have been a great loss instead of a profit of £20 million.
I beg the right hon. Member to disabuse his mind of the old-fashioned idea he had as a boy that profits are only made by squeezing the worker or by charging too much.

Mr. Willey: I wish to follow the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on one point which is of particular relevance to the matter that we are discussing. He explained how, in the case of Woolworth's, the difference of ½d. decided whether a person would be a millionaire or not. That is just what applies here. One cannot change the retail price of sugar by less than ½d. unit and, for that reason, within the marginal returns the price decides whether one can be a millionaire or not. That is the difficulty in determining margins.
For that reason we have shown ourselves throughout discussion of the Bill not satisfied with the attitude of the Minister towards margins. Here we have an industry in which, it is conceded on all sides, there is ground for a great deal of criticism. The Green Committee was so dissatisfied with the margins earned by sugar refiners that it said that the margins ought to be decided by the Sugar Commission. The Government evaded that by discussing the matter with the sugar refiners and accepting their assurance.
One of the reasons why we press this Amendment is that we are dissatisfied with the general approach of the Government to the difficult question of determining margins. So far as we can ascertain, the position is as it was before the war. The case of the Government is that the margins earned by the refiners are the same as they were before the war. I do not wish to repeat them as the hon. Member for Louth is probably aware of the figures of profits made by the principal refiner. The profits must of course be related to margins. I conceded in the Standing Committee that it is difficult to


determine the proper criteria in determining the margin, but I think that the hon. Member would concede that, in deciding whether one is right in determining the margin, one ought to look at the profits. The fact that the principal refiners have had substantial increases in profits over the past few years leads one to doubt the efficacy of the present formula for determination of margins.
Equally, it is a matter of common knowledge, and we can pay attention to the fact, that enormous sums are spent by the sugar refiners on advertising. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman is that he only determines the margin for the operation of refining, and he assured the Standing Committee that, so far as refining goes, he allows for no element of advertising. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is really a very unrealistic view of the responsibilities of the Government.
I do not want to be unduly critical of the Minister's comings department, but it really must be very artificial if the department thinks it can determine the refining margins in isolation and divorce from the refining operations the advertising expenses incurred by the firm which refines and distributes sugar. It is quite unrealistic, because the shareholders are not interested in that distinction; they are interested in the profits which they receive on the shares which they hold. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to make these artificial distinctions.
Here, as the White Paper shows, we have a unified price system for sugar On the domestic market. Obviously, all these things are inter-related, and, for that reason, we say to the right hon. Gentleman, as indeed my hon. and right hon. Friends have said already, that he cannot draw an artificial line in determining where advertising is related to refining and where it is related to wholesaling. He has to have regard to the costs borne by the refiners as companies in respect of advertising.
It was for that reason that we put down this Amendment, because we were not satisfied with the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman gave, in the context in which he gave it. We accept the general proposition which the right hon. Gentleman apparently put before the Committee—that advertising costs should

be disregarded—but we think it is quite artificial in that process then to draw the line at the refining process and to say that advertising is divorced from that process. That is really something which the right hon. Gentleman cannot do. Advertising is an expenditure and an expense borne by the company which is engaged in sugar refining. That is the first point which we wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman.
The second point is that we are dealing with what everyone on both sides of the House concedes to be a State-protected monopoly. We are not arguing the merits of monopoly, but this is a State-protected monopoly. This Bill gives wide powers of price control—in this instance control of margins—and that being so, we have to consider what is the public purpose of advertising.
Advertising reflects upon the element of subsidy which goes to support sugar consumption in this country, and goes to support the production of sugar from the Commonwealth and sugar beet. In those circumstances, advertising is impinging and touching upon a point of public policy. Therefore, we suggest that advertising is something which should rightly be within the scope of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry, when, in this instance, he determines the margins.
Finally, there is another broad consideration, on which I should have hoped we could get general agreement, when we have a position obtaining in which margins are subject to the control of the right hon. Gentleman, when he has powers of price control, and when there is an absolute monopoly, which, as one of my hon. Friends said, has divided the country up into zones for distribution purposes. In those circumstances, it seems quite inappropriate and out of place to allow any form of advertising, and particularly any form of advertising which might be used, as it has been used, for political purposes. The whole of the matters that we have been discussing during the progress of the Bill concern the subject of advertising over the past few years. I am not denying for a moment that it is right and proper to express a point of view about this. "Mr. Cube" in many respects, would obviously be very upset by many of the detailed provisions of the Bill, but what is offensive is that, as the marginal price


support is provided by Governmental action, formerly in the form of a subsidy but now in the form of Government-organised price support, there is no place for such advertising as we have had in the past few years—political advertising to secure political ends.
7.15 p.m.
Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, at least in spirit. He has commented upon the wording of our Amendment. We have tried to avoid being too doctrinaire in that wording, and all that we want to ensure is that the right hon. Gentleman regards expenses of advertising as a matter proper to the scope of his inquiry in determining the margins. He says that he does that already, and that he disregards such expenditure. We accept that as a very good reason for accepting this Amendment, but we add the rider that while we are not endeavouring to commit him by the wording of the Amendment, we believe that his regard should be wider than that which he shows at the present time in determining whether these margins are reasonable. Within the terms of the Amendment, we have left that wide.
All we want to saddle the right hon. Gentleman with is the political responsibility of being cognisant of the expenditure on advertising, and of being able to say without dubiety, if he feels that the occasion warrants it, that that expenditure will be regarded in determining the adequacy of the margin. For these reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this last opportunity of being conciliatory by accepting the Amendment.

Mr. H. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and his hon. Friends have made perfectly clear what their views are. I do not think that they have any relevance to this particular Clause; nor do I think that they have much relevance to the Bill, certainly in connection with the fixing of refiners' margins.
I think I ought to say at the beginning that, zoning also has nothing to do with the position, though I do not think the impression should be allowed to go out from the House as a result of speeches of Members opposite that zoning was to protect the private refiners. As hon. Gentlemen opposite well know, zoning

was introduced for the protection of the British Sugar Corporation, and we all approve of that. It is right that it should be so, but I do not think that it is right that the impression should go out from this House that it placed the private refiners in a more favourable position and that they took advantage in the form of some sort of advertising scheme.

Mr. G. Jeger: The point of the zoning scheme is that it gives a monopoly or almost a monopoly to a particular distributor in a particular area. That is where the unpleasant nature of the advertising comes in, when a non-political grocer may be forced, because of that monopoly position, to be handling and selling sugar, and handing out packets bearing slogans. That is something which I am quite sure we all want to avoid.

Mr. Nicholls: It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to make that generalisation, but zoning was for the protection of the British Sugar Corporation. In fact, in the zoned areas, one can get other kinds of sugar if one wants them. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are difficulties in that it costs more, due to freight charges, but that is not a tight monopoly in the sense that other kinds of sugar are not obtainable. But I repeat that that has no relevance to this part of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend has already explained that advertising expenses are not allowed when fixing the refiners' present margins, but this Amendment, however used, could mean only that it was preferred that advertising costs be included. We say, and we stand by the position, that refiners' margins should be fixed on the actual costs of getting the sugar granulated and delivered in 2 cwt. jute bags. All the expenses and costs of doing that should settle what is a fair margin to be allowed to the refiners, and in arriving at that figure we say that advertising costs should not be taken into account at all. If we use any words at all about advertising at this stage of the Bill it can mean only that we want advertising costs to be taken into account in the context of refiners' margins.
That has not happened during the time that we have been fixing these margins. We discussed the matter at length in the Standing Committee. It is well known


that the margins fixed are submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and must be approved by the Exchequer as being proper. If, in the opinion of the Chancellor, a margin is not satisfactory, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is given power to decide the margins. It is only fair to say that over a period of many years there has been no accusation or suggestion that the margins voluntarily submitted by the refiners have been other than fair.
Once a margin has been settled and accepted by the Chancellor, and has been agreed as fair and proper taking into account the proper expenses up to the stage of the 2 cwt. jute bag, and if, after that stage profits are made, I do not think that in such a Bill as this we should tell the refiners how to spend their profits. I do not think it is for this House to decide whether there is any need for the industry to advertise. That is a matter for the people in the industry.
It may well be that the advertising which is going on in an effort to persuade people to slim by not using sugar might prompt those in the industry to do a little advertising to the effect that if we want the people of this nation to have the vitality which they should have, they ought to consume more sugar. To say that in no circumstances ought those

people, who know their business, to advertise, is in my opinion going outside our terms of reference.

I consider the explanation given by my right hon. Friend to be a full one. Advertising costs are not taken into account, nor should they be. Under this Bill they will continue not to be taken into account. If, within the narrow limits of margins once made, and which are satisfactory to the Chancellor, those in the trade desire to spend their money in ways which have been described by hon. Gentlemen opposite as silly, that is a matter for them.

While I can appreciate the reactions of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the particular advertising campaigns that they have in mind, I do not think that this is the right time or place to pursue that subject. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen opposite will discover other times and more appropriate places where they can do so. I feel that the explanation of my right hon. Friend is in keeping with the Bill, and that this way of dealing with the matter, if regarded impartially, will be seen to be fair.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 213.

Clause 33.—(REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)

Amendments made: In page 36, line 22, leave out from first "of" to end of line 23 and insert:
such orders as are mentioned in the next following subsection".
In line 26, at end insert:
(3) No order shall be made under subsection (4) of section eighteen of this Act, or under section twenty-five, twenty-six or twenty-seven of this Act, unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Amory.]

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Amory: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have frankly to recognise that there is an element of controversy in the Bill. It stems from the very different views taken by the Opposition and ourselves about the merits of Government trading. These different views have led to rather divergent opinions on the shape and functions of the Sugar Board. Our object, we have said frankly, is to reduce to the minimum the extent of Government interference with private enterprise. We have therefore proposed to set up a small executive board with strictly limited functions, and we have proposed to leave the existing structure of the British Sugar Corporation as nearly as possible untouched.
If I have understood the Opposition correctly, it would have preferred a board with wider policy and planning powers which would operate as an agent for full trading under the auspices of the Government. It would also have preferred nationalisation—to all intents and purposes—of the British Sugar Corporation. Bearing in mind those fundamentally different approaches, we have cause for satisfaction that we have had very useful and constructive, if sometimes quite prolonged, discussions throughout the Committee stage in an atmosphere of friendly

toleration, punctuated sometimes with a modicum of good humoured badinage.
While acknowledging and facing up to the politically philosophical differences, hon. Members have co-operated in seeking to make the most of the ground on which there is complete agreement. The result is that we have a Bill which has been improved in several respects. I am glad to say that we have found complete agreement on two fundamentally important points. The first one is the policy for fostering the sugar cane industries in the Commonwealth through the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The second is the policy of providing support for our home sugar beet industry through the guarantees under the Agriculture Act, 1947.
I should like once more to repeat—I have said it on a number of occasions—that there is nothing in the Bill which in any way interferes with either of those two objectives. On the contrary, the legislative provisions which are made in the Bill will, I am certain, afford additional proof of the importance with which the Government regard these policies to which I have referred. I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two of the provisions which I regard as positive improvements.
In Committee everyone was concerned to safeguard the position of the user and the consumer of sugar. All of us recognise, although reluctantly perhaps, that market sharing arrangements continue to be necessary for the purpose of ensuring adequate outlets on the most economical terms for the beet sugar which the British Sugar Corporation produces as a consequence of implementing the guarantee to the sugar beet growers. It is inevitable that users and consumers should feel anxiety about the possible effects that such arrangements may have on their own interests.
For that reason, the Bill as it was first drafted gave specific powers to the Minister to secure modification of sugar refining agreements, as the market sharing arrangements are called, if he felt that their operation was likely to bear harshly on users and consumers. However, in Committee it was decided to go further than that by laying down as a statutory obligation on the Minister that, when deciding whether or not to approve a refining agreement, he should take into account what effect it would have on the interests of users and consumers of sugar.
Another improvement was also achieved. Not only users and consumers, but the sugar trade in general as well as the House have a right to know in the simplest and plainest terms the financial results of the operations of the Sugar Board during any particular year. With the encouragement of hon. Members opposite, we have set out in the Third Schedule some of the things which the Sugar Board must show in its annual report and accounts. I am sure that all this will help to ensure that the operations of the Sugar Board are known and understood by Parliament and everyone else concerned or interested.
While the Committee accepted—wisely, I think—the suggestion of some of my hon. Friends that the accounts of the Sugar Board should be audited by commercial accountants, the position of this House has been fully safeguarded by retaining for the Comptroller and Auditor-General the responsibility of certifying and reporting upon the Sugar Board's accounts. We have also fully safeguarded Parliamentary control by providing that orders made under Clauses 18 (4), 25, 26 and 27 shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I was very gratified to find the Committee—and, I think, the House today, too—united in praise of the work of the British Sugar Corporation. The Corporation's relations with its own workpeople are admirable and I should like to take this opportunity of saying how glad I was to hear recently that the Corporation is starting a pensions scheme for its manual workers, which, I believe, will begin to operate next month. I am sure that the House as a whole will approve this new development.
I think it is partly because of the backing which it has received from both

sides of the House, Government and Opposition alike, that the beet industry today, both the farming and the processing sides, is so hightly efficient. One of the reasons for welcoming the Bill is that it serves to confirm the obligations that the Government have under the Agriculture Act, 1947, towards the growers of sugar beet. Likewise, I am confident that the cane sugar producers of the Commonwealth will see in the Bill an earnest of the Government's wholehearted support for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. With the Agreement behind them and this Bill on the Statute Book, I am sure that the sugar industries in the West Indies, in British Guiana, in Mauritius, in Fiji, in the coastal areas of Queensland and in Natal can look forward to the future with confidence.
The refiners, too, have an important part to play. As the House knows, they have given me an assurance, as they gave before the war, that they will make it their practice to prefer Commonwealth sugar for their home trade requirements provided that it is offered competitively. With their help and with the goodwill of other sections of the sugar trade, the new Sugar Board will, I am confident, be able to face its task with the assurance of general support.
The Bill not only puts an end to direct Government trading in sugar and paves the way for the re-opening of the London Terminal Sugar Market, but I firmly believe that it provides a framework for the further steady expansion, both in confidence and in efficiency, of the sugar industries of this country and the Commonwealth. I therefore hope very much that the House will decide to give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: The Minister has moved the Third Reading with his customary skill and accomplishment. I notice that he has lulled the best part of the House into supporting it by not taking a very prominent part in the debate, but I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to get away with the impression that the Bill will be unopposed. I do not say that we shall oppose it at this stage. We shall have an opportunity presently of hearing further from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and if he meets some of the comments


that we make we can consider our position.
The Minister said that the proceedings in Committee had been most friendly. We on this side agree and we pay tribute to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, who by their geniality, kindness and consideration at all times made that possible. But while there was little or no clash of personalities, I should be wrong if I gave the impression that there were not many struggles and violent disagreements over matters of principle. The right hon. Gentleman himself has referred to them.
The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary today have again given the impression of being most reasonable and of meeting the points that we have put to them. I do not accept that they have been altogether reasonable. They have acted solely in the interests of the Government. The Bill was hastily conceived. Even before its Second Reading, the Minister had to make variations. As a result of the thoughtful and considered statements by my hon. and right hon. Friends, he has recognised that what we said was right. Even though his action was delayed, he has incorporated some of our suggestions in the Bill because he knew that they would make more sense and would be better from the Government's point of view. It is not out of consideration for the Opposition that these concessions have been made.
What the Government would have liked to do was, I am sure, not to have presented' the Bill in the way in which it has been put before us for Third Reading today. They would rather have given the whole of the business of the sugar trade over to private enterprise. They would have done that had they not had contractual obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and to the growers of home-produced sugar beet under the Agriculture Act, 1947.
What the Government have done is to continue the policy which they began in 1951 of launching into the doctrinaire course of a so-called free market. The Government have destroyed the planned economy which the Labour Government built up and upon which a great measure of success from 1951 until the crisis began to show itself depended. In

retrospect, the public will see that the Government have done damage to themselves and to the country by doing away with the policy of the Labour Government that was hitherto followed.

Mr. Osborne: Stick to sugar.

Mr. Bottomley: Indeed, we can now say that it is more a matter of "profit for the boys" which has been the main consideration. That is one of the reasons why the Government and ourselves part company on the principle of trading for the good of the country as against putting the trade in the hands of private individuals for private gain.
To meet his obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and to the sugar beet growers under the 1947 Act, the Minister has had to create a Sugar Board. It is to have a chairman and four members. They will not necessarily be full-time members but can be part-time members. To create the Board, with many other things that the Government wanted to include in the Bill, the Minister had, as he said when presenting the Bill, to introduce a complicated Measure but one which he described as being
fairly simple in its main provisions.
All I can say is that we did not find the Bill simple in Committee, and it was made much more difficult for us to understand.
The Minister will remember that on Second Reading—I assure him that we shared his opinion—he said that on Clauses 7 to 16 he looked forward
to hearing in the Committee a lucid exposition from my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 2019, 2026.]
As we know, the Government did not even take the trouble to include the Financial Secretary in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Willey: Neither is he here tonight.

Mr. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend says, he is not present tonight. I make no complaint against the Minister in saying that he would be the first to admit that in Committee he could not give as much attention to the Bill as he would have liked. We recognise that he was overworked. He had at the same time to deal with the review of farm prices as well as many other pressing matters.
We did, however, have the benefit of the attendance in Committee of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, although only when we called for him to be present. I can only presume that he thought it was unnecessary to attend the Committee because the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), who had been the sternest critic of the Government, was not on the Committee and the Joint Under-Secretary, therefore thought he could stay away because there would be nothing for him to do. However, we saw to it that he did not have such an easy time. We made calls on his time, and he readily obeyed.
As far as the Government back benchers were concerned—they are notably absent again tonight—they did little or no talking in Committee. It may be that tonight they are celebrating the end of the Bill. I make an exception in the case of one hon. Member who has taken an interest in the sugar-beet industry, but the Government specially placed on the Sugar Bill Committee some hon. Members who had specialist qualifications. For instance, the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) was put on the Committee. During the Second Reading debate, he was very keen that the Sugar Board should also buy Commonwealth sugar outside the Commonwealth Agreement, but during our proceedings in Committee not one word was said about that and nothing has been said about it this afternoon.
Then there was the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who is the Conservative Party's expert on Commonwealth affairs, but though we were discussing something of great importance to the Commonwealth as a whole, the hon. Gentleman had not one word to say in Committee. What was most pathetic was that one Conservative Member, as he told us in his maiden speech, had tried for twenty years to get into the House. I had to remind him that having waited that time he had sat in the Sugar Bill Committee and had not even been allowed to open his mouth. How disappointing after twenty years. No wonder that on several occasions the Government could not get a quorum. Indeed, on one occasion the Committee had to adjourn because of that.
I cannot leave out, of course, the gallant warrior of the Committee proceedings, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary himself. He was overburdened and overworked, but, as I said a little while ago, by his very kindness and generosity—indeed, I begin to wonder whether Malenkov was on the Committee—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I gather that this is a friendly debate, but we are on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Bottomley: As I have said, what separates the two sides of the House is this matter of principle. As I see it, we on this side of the House were always putting forward the interest of the workers and the consumers, whereas the Government always seemed to be taking the side of those with other interests.
The Sugar Board which is created under the Bill—and I quote from a Report—
is an accounting agency leaving it to private traders to make all the physical arrangements for transferring sugar from the producing countries to the United Kingdom in the most economical way and to suit the convenience of the producers.
If that is so, then I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Board ought not to be concerned only with the convenience of the producers. The consumers certainly ought to have a say in this. Should they not be more strongly represented, or at least have some representation on the Board? I know that the Parliamentary Secretary would argue that representation of the consumers is achieved through hon. Members of this House. But if we carry that to its logical conclusion, then it is questionable whether we should not change from a democracy to another kind of system. As I said in Committee, as a result of experience of past Acts of Parliament, we know that marketing boards provide for consumer interests. The Government ought to do something in this direction. It is certainly easier to represent consumers of sugar than it is to represent consumers of tomatoes or cucumbers.
We on this side say that when the Bill is passed it will result in an increase in the price of sugar to the consumer. The Minister, I know, says that that will not be so. I should like to ask him a question with which the Parliamentary


Secretary can deal when he winds up. The Ministry of Agriculture has just conducted an annual price review with the farmers. Under that review, increased prices are to be given for the sugar beet produced this year and next. Will that result in a higher retail price for sugar or is the Sugar Board going to be allowed to incur a loss? If there is to be an increase in the price of sugar, then, in my judgment, it will be borne by the consumer instead of as before by the taxpayer. I believe this to be a retrogressive move and one which will bear particularly hardly on the old-age pensioners especially at a time of rising prices and when pensions are lagging well behind the increase in the cost of living.
All of us in Committee, and again today have paid tribute to the British Sugar Corporation. We are entitled to say that we believe that this organisation is going to suffer under the provisions of the Bill. During the Committee stage we never received an adequate answer on this point, but I am hoping that we shall get one tonight. The current refining agreement between the British Sugar Corporation and the rest of the industry—for which we continually pressed in Committee—was only presented to us on the last day of our proceedings. It certainly did not give the Opposition a chance of looking at the details in Committee. Perhaps we can now have a look at the marketing arrangements under that agreement since we did not have the opportunity of doing so in Committee owing to its late presentation. It is predominantly an agreement between the Corporation and Tate and Lyle.
Here, again, there is a clear difference and difficulty before us. The British sugar Corporation is allowed to market refined sugar in certain areas, but any special sugar, even if granulated, falls outside the agreement. The Corporation could quite easily find a market undermined by other varieties of sugar, in spite of the zoning system. I am not suggesting that consumer choice should be limited, but why should not the Corporation be allowed to market whatever variety of sugar it likes?

Mr. Amory: It can

Mr. Bottomley: Is the British Sugar Corporation allowed to market cube sugar?

Mr. Amory: If it wishes to do so, yes.

Mr. Bottomley: But would it be to its financial disadvantage if it did so? Is the agreement made in such a way that it prevents the Corporation having the opportunity of freely doing these things? Can we have not only this agreement, but any future agreement between the British Sugar Corporation and the trade placed in the Library of the House? As restrictions are placed upon the Corporation by the Treasury, anything imposed by the Treasury without the support of this House ought to be publicised and available to us for examination in order that we may be certain that the Corporation can do what I fear it cannot do at the moment, but which the Minister says it is possible for it to do.
In view of the British Sugar Corporation's increased refining capacity, is it right that there should be the present carve up of the market? It is carved up geographically and certainly, as I have said, as regards the different varieties of sugar. Is such a situation to be considered permanent? This is something to test the Government's belief in competition.
Later, we are to discuss the Restrictive Practices Bill, but within the present Bill it is suggested that we give Parliamentary sanction to restrictive practices. Clause 25 deals with them. It is odd that we should propose to do away with private courts in the legislation which is to come, while giving Parliamentary sanction to restrictive practices in this Bill.
Another fundamental difference between us concerns our fears about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which ensures the best conditions for the supply of sugar to the home consumer and enables us to meet our obligations to the Colonial Territories by the promotion of welfare and other facilities for their betterment. The Government seem anxious to do away with State trading and are forced to introduce this inadequate, costly and unnecessary machinery in order to face up to a mere modicum of responsibility under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
At present the supply of foreign sugar coming into this country is limited because the State does the buying, but when the State steps out the buying of sugar will be left to British refiners. I


suppose it is for them in competition to check the flow of foreign imports. At the moment there is protection because of the Act of 1928, but as soon as the Bill is law, the French—this has been indicated by importers that I know—will enter our market in a keen, competitive and, some may say, unfair manner. Even the chairman of Messrs. Tate & Lyle has said that if the French imports increased difficulties might arise.
We know what that means. There will be pressure upon the Government to give complete freedom to the trade, and that will undermine the Commmonwealth Sugar Agreement. I know that within the Bill the Minister has power to step in, but in the face of pressure upon him and his Government we know, having witnessed the behaviour of the Chancellor of Exchequer, what will happen. The Chancellor would like to reimpose control. The present Minister of Agriculture will be forced to consider abandoning the present arrangements which do not go the whole way to meet the wishes of the free market.
The Minister knows that his own supporters have already given him a warning. One of them pleaded with the right hon. Gentleman not to look at the scheme as a sort of boat on a pond attached to a piece of string. He urged the Minister to dispose of all the Socialist trimmings. That kind of agitation and pressure will grow. It is a threat to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
The Bill worsens conditions for the consumer. The simplest and most economic way to implement the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is Government purchase of sugar. The Bill will, in our judgment, further weaken the confidence of Governments in long-term trade agreements within the Commonwealth. It puts the merchants in an overwhelmingy strong position but affords no advantage to the consumer. Unless we get something nearer to our point of view than has been expressed to us so far, we shall have to consider opposing the Third Reading.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Dye: In discussing the Bill on its Third Reading we have to remember that the Committee spent forty hours considering it during sixteen sittings. The proceedings were to the advantage of some hon. Members because they learned

a lot about legislation affecting the production of sugar. All hon. Members who took part in the proceedings learned something more than they knew before about the arrangements and the organisation for the production of this important commodity which is in everyday use.
Owing to the protracted nature of the Committee discussions it has been necessary to delay the coming into effect of this Measure by a year. The Government expected that they would get the Bill through all its stages by April, 1956, and would then be able to set up the organisation for it to come into effect. Owing to the lack of preparation it was necessary to prolong the Committee discussion and try to improve the Bill, and it will not now be effective until 1957. We opposed the Bill on Second Reading because there was more in it that we disliked than we liked, yet we agree that there are many good things in it.
Without a Bill of this description it would be difficult to carry on the steady production of sugar in the Commonwealth and here which ensures that those who have invested their capital in the industry get an adequate return and those who work in it get an adequate wage and full employment. The purpose of the Measure is to enable the production of sugar to continue in the Commonwealth and to ensure that provision is made to pay the producers a price that will ensure a decent standard of living.
It has not been possible in the past to pay decent wages to native workers in the Colonies and in the Commonwealth. It is a matter of regret, and indeed of shame, that workers have been exploited at very low wages and the resources of the Colonies have been exploited and rapidly deteriorated, through the efforts of those who have produced sugar. We must now either attempt to stabilise sugar-producing industries in the Colonies at decent standards or provide by other means for the proper maintenance of the people in the Colonies. It is far better to organise a sugar-producing industry of this character than for the people to be unemployed and dependent upon subventions from the Exchequer to maintain them. We are giving by this Bill a continuity to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement that will enable production of sugar to continue.
We are also continuing the production of beet sugar in this country because it is an essential part of our self-support in time of war. Sugar beet growing was introduced mainly in order that we should be able to produce more of our own sugar when we were nearly cut off from supplies from abroad, yet this part of our agriculture has been of very great benefit to the arable parts of the country. It has resulted in an improved standard of cultivation and improvements to other crops; indeed, the better the growers of sugar beet the better the farmers in those areas. It is of some importance that we are continuing at about the same level of sugar production here at home.
Although all I desired in relation to sugar beet growing has not been embodied in the Bill, I appreciate certain of the provisions which have been made. I appreciate the steps which the Minister of Agriculture has taken about arrangements, or discussions for better arrangements, for fixing the price of beet pulp to the growers. It is not a matter embodied in the Bill, but the question does arise, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to do something about the arrangements between the Corporation and the National Farmers' Union to enable a fairer price to be charged to the growers for the dried or wet pulp which they receive back from the factories. This is a matter of considerable importance to the growers.
It is also essential that workers in the factories should be fairly paid, receiving wages more compatible with those of workers in other industries. This, however, will not be possible unless the arrangements which have been made in the past, and which are continued under the Bill, are carried out. I was very pleased to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that the Corporation is discussing the introduction of incentive payments to the workers and also a pensions scheme. It has been a matter of regret that workers in some factories have been covered by a pension scheme whereas similar workers in other factories have not. If we are to subsidise the British Sugar Corporation, then it would be the general wish of all Members that the conditions of employment and of pension on retirement should be adequate for those who are engaged.
The principal purpose of the Bill is to, enable the London Sugar Market to be opened, and this is where we disagree. Why should we on this side of the House be apprehensive of a return to an open market for sugar? The first reason is to be found in conditions which exist in other parts of the world, but the main reason arises from our experience in the last two or three years in other commodity markets.
What happened when the London Tea Market was opened? There was speculation; there were rising prices there were rumours about shortage of supplies. The result was that the retail price of tea rose rapidly, and it was a matter of grave concern to all consumers of tea. Then, apparently for no reason, the price fell; but it never came back to the level at which it was before the London Tea Market was opened.
In systems not of completely free enterprise but partly controlled by the Government and partly controlled by groups of producers or traders, the difference between the price which is paid to the producer and that which the consumer has to pay seems to grow bigger and bigger, and the margins operating become wider. Tea is one example.
The same applies to the meat market. We have seen how prices rapidly rose after the decontrol of fatstock. Then prices of fat cattle fell to much lower levels; but it does not seem to make much difference whether the wholesale or market price is high or low—there is little difference in the price charged to the consumer.
This mechanism of the so-called open or free market does not seem to operate to the prime advantage of the producer on the one hand or of the consumer on the other. Obviously, it operates to the advantage of the traders.
Therefore, seeing that the main purpose of the Bill is to open the London Sugar Market, we look with apprehension to the future price of sugar and the marketing conditions of sugar. Unless there is an element of control, consumers will probably be asked to pay more, and the margins of profit made by the interests concerned will grow much wider. We have seen the effect of fluctuating prices in other commodities. Fluctuating prices bring uncertainty to producers and make consumers pay more.
This aspect of the Bill we deplore. The setting up of a Sugar Board to act as accountancy agent may not have a steadying effect. In fact, the main forces influencing the price of sugar will be beyond the control either of the Sugar Board or Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that there may be wide fluctuations, with the Sugar Board at a disadvantage and having at times to impose a levy to make up for the difference between the price at which it will buy sugar from the Commonwealth and Colonies or from the Corporation and the price at which it will sell to the refiners.
The refiners will always be safeguarded under the Bill. They are to be put into a lovely kind of hot-house; as a plant they can only flourish—they cannot fade away. But they can flourish only at the consumer's expense. That aspect of the Bill, therefore, we heartily dislike.
The weak position of the Sugar Board in this set-up is equally disliked. The weakness of the Board is reflected in its inability to store or transport supplies of sugar; its duty is to buy sugar at its source of origin and sell it there to some concern, some corporation, which will accept the purchase of it. There are fluctuations in the supply of sugar. Since it is a natural product, supplies are more plentiful in some years than in others. We would have thought that the organisation in a position to act as a kind of cushion or storage agency would be the Board rather than the refiners who represent private enterprise.
The Minister himself apparently can be a buyer and storer of sugar operating independently or through the Board. This we think is a weakness. I would much rather have seen an effort made in the Bill more properly to integrate this aspect of our situation, namely the holding of strategic supplies of sugar. This seems to be a kind of ad hoc business, which the Minister will carry on in addition to the Board doing its business and the refineries operating under private enterprise. It seems to me that in future, as now, the taxpayer will be saddled with the high cost of sending strategic supplies from storage to refineries long distances away. The cost probably should fall on the taxpayer, but the job should be done in the most economical and efficient manner.
We would rather have seen the duty put on the Board to buy, transport and store the sugar needed both for immediate consumption and for storing against times of need. It may be that in the future the war clouds will recede, that the Iron Curtain will be lifted, the threat of war disappear, and that it will not be necessary to store these supplies. It may be that the most economical way is to get the sugar flowing from the source of origin to the refineries, the distributors and the consumers with the least possible delay, but we think that there will ever be need for storage facilities, and we are not satisfied with those planned.
We have, of course, had our differences with the Government on State trading. They look upon it as an anathema—something to be avoided. We say that any commodity so essential to the life of the commounity, and one which is used in every household for every meal, is something in which the State might with advantage take a proper and bigger share. We would rather have seen a stronger and bigger Board with the powers now exercised by the Ministry transferred to the Board and their importance appreciated.
Although we dislike the Bill in these respects, we appreciate that the Government have paid regard to many of the arguments that we have advanced. We can now see in the Bill improvements for the continuance of the industry both at home and in the Colonies, with better conditions for the workers and with, we hope, some safeguards for the consumers. The fact remains that in recent years the price of sugar to the consumer has gone up more than has the cost of producing raw sugar. That is quite clear. It is because of the rising prices of sugar and other commodities over the last few years that we view with apprehension the Government's attitude to this vital problem.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. G. Jeger: We are now reaching the closing stages of the Bill, and I am quite sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is very relieved as he watches the clock and counts the minutes as they go by. He did, indeed, have a very long innings, when the Standing Committee sat far forty hours during sixteen meetings. Much of the burden fell upon his shoulders. Both he and his right hon. Friend were hard pressed to justify many


of the Clauses, and it is to their credit that they listened to the voice of common sense from our side of the Committee and accepted some of our Amendments.
They accepted only a limited number of the Amendments which we proposed. Unfortunately, their minds were closed to the main ideas which we put forward, ideas which, had they been accepted, would have greatly improved the Bill. But we must express our thanks for the small concessions that they have made, concessions not so much to us as to the appeal of common sense to their minds—[An HON. MEMBER: "Their what?"] By their political bias they were precluded from listening to us as political opponents, but they recognised the voice of common sense when they were able to divorce it from the political bias.
They were forced to listen to us, because the voices of their hon. Friends were absent completely. In fact, until I sat in the Standing Committee to discuss the Bill I had not realised that it was possible to sit for forty hours, through sixteen sessions, without speaking a word. Yet that is what happened in respect of sixteen or seventeen hon. Members on the Conservative side of the Committee. Never once did any of them come to the rescue or attempt in any way to support the Government's arguments or to oppose ours. I think that there should be a special message of thanks from both the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to this side of the House for the work which we did to make the Bill something nearer what it ought to be.
There are still many faults with the Measure. We are still profoundly dissatisfied with it. We hope that some reassurances will be given to back up some of those given in the Standing Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) has said, we are particularly perturbed about the Bill's effect on the Commonwealth. We take a pride in the Commonwealth, and a great interest in the way in which it works. We take a particular interest in the welfare of those working on the sugar plantations within the Commonwealth, and are concerned that they should not suffer by anything provided in the Bill—or later.
I know that the Colonial Secretary was prevailed upon to come to one of the sittings of the Committee to tell us that he had consulted the Commonwealth sugar interests, and that they had expressed themselves as having no objections to the provisions of the Bill. We had a similar assurance from the Minister, thereby underlining our insistence on such assurances. At the same time we are not quite satisfied that the interests of the Commonwealth are as well protected as they might be.
We, on this side of the House, have also spoken to representatives of the Commonwealth, those who are concerned with growing the sugar and getting it to us; those who are really more concerned about sugar than we are, because to us it is only a commodity to sweeten beverages, but to them it is one on which they live and upon which the prosperity of their countries depends. They have to accept the provisions of this Bill faute de mieux. They cannot help themselves. They know that there is a Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and that it would be a very bad thing indeed for this Government to repudiate it or to cut short any of its provisions. But when we proposed, in an Amendment, that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement should be extended or that there might be safeguards connected with it, we were voted down by the Government side of the Committee.
We know from our experience and our contact with people in the Commonwealth that they are concerned that there should be a future for their Commonwealth sugar beyond the existing Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and there is no guarantee for that in the provisions of this Bill. On the contrary, the philosophy and ideas behind the Bill point to the future of Commonwealth sugar as being rather uncertain and likely to cause anxiety and worry in the future to the sugar growers and producers in the Commonwealth.
I now wish to discuss the Board. The composition of the Board was discussed fully in Committee. We tried to elucidate what the members' functions, salaries, etc. were. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave us a number of different ideas about them. By reference to the Committee stage one can gather that on one occasion we were told that they were merely to be accounting agents and that their functions would be extremely limited. One


wondered what sort of men would constitute the Board if that was to be their real duty.
Then we were told that they were to be real businessmen who would be watching the market from day to day, buying and selling and following the normal processes relating to sugar. We were told, in a semi-sneer, that there had to be certain safeguards became some of the members of the Board might be guilty of temporary aberrations. If they are to be accountants' agents, and if they are also to be liable to be guilty of temporary aberrations, it causes us to wonder what sort of people will be appointed to this Board, what their functions and capacity will be, and what confidence they will have in themselves if the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary show little confidence in them to start with.
What we were not able to get at was what their functions would be regarding the protection of the consumer—and that, after all, is what the function of Government nominees should be. The Government represents the consumer and the public. The Government nominees should be able to represent the Government interests and consumer interests—that is, the mass of the people in the country.
We are not able to elicit whether any of their powers and duties would be outside pure business and would be within the framework of the philosophy of protecting consumers from the higgling of the market, from the producers and from the semi-monopoly stage in which the sugar industry is at the moment. We were very disappointed about that, and I am very sorry indeed that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have not told us anything at this stage about the composition of the Board.
I referred to the fact that the salaries, appointments, conditions and terms of the Board are very vague. I hope that the members will be selected from among the people of the highest possible repute, of the highest possible ability and with the best intentions, but I hope that when they take up their office they will not merely be stooges who are suggested to the Minister by various representatives of the industry, and that they will not be known as the "sugar daddies" of the Board. That is something which we would all deprecate, but it is something of which

there is a real danger if the appointments are not conducted properly.
We send this Bill forward, I suppose, as the Government can command their majority in the Lobbies, even if they cannot command the support of their Members on the benches. When this Bill goes forward to another place I hope that the Minister, with his delayed action thoughts, will think of a few more improvements based on our Amendments and suggestions, and will have them incorporated before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. R. Moss: The virtues of the Bill are mainly negative. If the Minister's wages depended upon his productivity and if he were to obey the injunction given to the population by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not have his wages increased as a result of this Measure because it does not increase the productivity of the Government.
The object of the Bill is to set up a Sugar Board. Clause 1 says:
There shall be established a Board …
The Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary have constantly referred to the nature of this Board. It is an executive Board. Its functions are quite narrow. It is an accounting agency, and so on. It is obviously intended to be an instrument rather than a responsible institution. Yet its functions are in fact very important in a negative sense.
For example, the Bill states that one of the functions of the Sugar Board shall be that of purchasing Commonwealth sugar. This is a most important duty for it to perform, for Commonwealth supplies under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, 1951, amount to some 1½ million tons. Moreover, the Bill is also concerned with the sugar beet industry in this country—another obligation which is the responsibility of the Government.
The British sugar beet industry, which dates from 1925, supplies between 600,000 and 700,000 tons of sugar—last year in actual fact 636,000 tons. But these long-term contracts have been established under the trading conditions as they have existed hitherto, and the Bill has the negative virtue of not disturbing them, or at least so the Minister of Agriculture has proclaimed again and again. If that is


so, we on this side of the House are extremely glad, because a third factor is then involved, namely, our balance of payments position, about which we have had some interesting information today in the Economic Survey of 1956.
One of the objects of the Measure is said to be to have regard to our balance of payments position. The Sugar Board will have to operate in the light of our balance of payments position, but that, too, is a problem which has existed under present trading arrangements and is no way affected by the arrangements made in the Bill. It might be supposed that the arrangements made for the establishment of a Sugar Board might do something to improve the export of refined sugar which has become a very useful source of foreign currency, but again, that export trade has been revived since the end of the war under present trading arrangements. Nor does it seem possible that the establishment of this Board will affect prices to the consumer. In fact, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said on 10th November that if there is any alteration in the price of sugar, it is an alteration which could take place whether we had the Bill or not.
All that this amounts to is that the Minister of Agriculture was right when he said that he did not intend to undo any of the work of the past by bringing in the Bill, but we have to ask ourselves: what positive virtue does it possess, or is it entirely negative? Is it a Bill which achieves nothing positive by itself? I can find only two reasons which justify the passage of the Bill. I hope that I have made myself clear to the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to say that the great issues are not affected by the Bill; they do not justify the introduction of the Bill.
There must be some other reason for its introduction. I think the reason was given by the Minister when he said that he was introducing it to end State trading in sugar, and by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that he wanted to take the buying and selling of sugar out of the hands of the Government machine. The Bill sets up a small Sugar Board, with no responsible functions—it is an instrumentalist Board to carry out accounting or executive functions only—to end State trading in sugar.
The second reason for the Bill is to make possible the opening of the London terminal sugar market, which the Parliamentary Secretary described as a very useful step. He did not produce any evidence to show why it was a very useful step, and so far as concerns the evidence which he has provided, or, rather, has not provided, that is a mere hope.
I regard the Bill as an ideological idiosyncrasy. It has been introduced, and we are now asked to give it a Third Reading, because of the ideological prejudices which exist in the mind of the Minister, who still refers to our modern economic system in terms of free enterprise, supply and demand and other laws which may have operated almost generations ago but are now obsolete. The Bill originates in that sort of prejudice.
I welcome the fact that, according to the exhortations of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, the Bill does not appear to imperil the gains which have been made under State trading. Those are its negative virtues. As to its positive virtues, they hardly justify its introduction.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am sorry that the Minister has left the Chamber because I wished to refer to his speech. Having sat for forty hours through the Committee stage of the Bill, he might, surely, have been able to spend an hour or two with us tonight, particularly to hear what has been rare in the consideration of the Bill, a Scottish voice.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will have an opportunity to wind up the debate. He certainly did not get much chance to speak during the Committee stage. Hon. Members should not be too severe on him for that. The trouble has been that three or four Scottish Bills have been in progress at the same time. I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary appreciates the difficulty in which we sometimes find ourselves, and I hope he will use his influence with those who are directly concerned with Bills so to arrange business that proper attention can be paid to them by the hon. Members concerned.
The Bill, the Third Reading of which we are concerned with tonight, is presented by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The right hon. Gentleman is supported by the Secretary


of State for Scotland—he is absent—by the Colonial Secretary—he is absent—by the President of the Board of Trade—he is absent—by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—he is absent—and by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—he is absent. The only effective representatives whose names are on the Bill and who are with us now are the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who, I understand, is representing the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Minister declared, with his customary flamboyance, that this was a step towards the ending of State trading and towards freedom for the industry: it was not only something desirable, but it was indeed a triumph. I suggest to the Minister and to those who support him that we are no longer living in the era of the slogans of 1945–1950. Those slogans are being slaughtered every day by hon. Members opposite. When the Minister talks about a return to freedom it makes me wonder if he has read his Bill and whether or not he can return to freedom.
This is the essential dilemma in which the Government find themselves. They not only have the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, in which not the people in the industry but the Government are concerned, but also the International Sugar Agreement, which again binds the Government. Whether the Government like it or not, they are in the sugar industry, and have to stay in it.
They read this Bill as a charter of freedom, but it is crammed with controls. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite who still believe in this slogan business of "Set the people free" have read the Bill. There is not a Clause in it without a restriction. Orders, regulations, limitations, fixing of prices—it is all here. In fact, if this is a step towards freedom it is a gey, frail, feeble and faltering one—I should say a very frail, feeble and faltering one.
The Bill shows a lack of conviction in the approach of the Minister this matter. When we consider what is at stake is the well-being of primary producers of sugar—through the Colonial Office we have very deep and grave responsibilities for them—and that of the

consumers of sugar all over Scotland, England and Wales, in our constituencies, for whom we have direct responsibilities and with whom we are in much more common contact, the importance of the Bill, and not only the Bill but the tendency to which it points, become all the more evident.
If the Minister really believes what he says, it means that he wants to end all Government concern in sugar as soon as he can. That will be a very bitter day indeed for the Commonwealth. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman cut himself away from those worn-out slogans of the past about State trading. The fact is that from the point of view of our Commonwealth and the well-being of the Commonwealth, as well as of the industry at home, the Government must be concerned with this industry.
Certainly we in Scotland are concerned with the workers in the refining section of the industry. It is well known that one of the major industries in one of the largest towns in the west of Scotland is the sugar industry and naturally we must be concerned about what is to happen to it. That town is a trading port and, if the Commonwealth is to be let down, eventually that part of the world will feel the effect in other ways because we cannot tamper with the well-being and prosperity of our Commonwealth without that affecting our trade.
I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade is not here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Send for him."] If I thought he would be of any use I would send for him, but I am more inclined to send him somewhere.
I want to direct a word or two now to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with special reference to food. One of the limitations laid upon those in the industry is that they must, whether they like it or not, buy certain sugar at a certain price, and they must adopt certain practices in relation to the sale of that sugar. They must not exceed the profit margins which are laid down.
Here we have to consider the kind of firm we are dealing with, which is pretty near monopoly. If a firm is found guilty of an offence, according to Clause 28 of the Bill, the penalty is a fine not exceeding £100 on summary conviction. This is going to kill Tate and Lyle, I am sure.


In the case of a conviction on indictment, the fine is one not exceeding £2,000. Really, we are doing worse to salmon poachers in Scotland, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows it. Why, only the other day, two fellows were given 18 months' imprisonment, and their appeal was turned down, because a very serious view is taken of that kind of thing in Scotland. Should we not take just as serious a view when dealing with a commodity which is of considerable concern to every person in this country?
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary had a word or two to say on that subject. The hon. Gentleman said that it was not just the case that a firm would be fined. If a firm was convicted of an offence, it would not only incur a fine, but also the distrust of the Minister of the day. The Ministers—all five of them concerned with Scotland—have been distrusting me for a long time, and have earned my distrust of them for a long time, but I do not think that they are particularly worried about it, any more than I am worried about their distrust.
I do not think that the Government have recognised the importance of this matter from the point of view of the primary producers or from that of the consumers in this country. Certainly, all that we have here, as one of my hon. Friends has said, is a purely technical Bill, which is based upon this ideological hatred of State trading. I take a very serious view of it, and I feel that this is just a demonstration of a continuing tendency, indeed, a determination, that no matter at what cost and to whom, the Government are to continue with this destructive legislation. I feel that the interests of the primary producers in the Commonwealth and the consumers at home are being sacrificed, and will be sacrificed, on the old altar of Tory political prejudice and dogma.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Willey: Having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I think it a pity that he did not serve with us on the Standing Committee—

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will realise that I was serving on three other Committees under the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Willey: I appreciate the reason, but I still express the sorrow.
I wish also to express sorrow for the Minister. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has found himself, and still finds himself, in a very invidious position. From the start, we have made it clear that this Bill sets out to do a number of things which are creditable. But this so upset the right hon. and hon. Friends of the right hon. Gentleman that it was almost impossible for them to contribute anything during the Committee stage discussions. They have avoided the Report stage of this Bill, except when the provocative word "profits" was mentioned. Not one hon. Gentleman opposite has said a kind word for the Minister during the Third Reading debate speeches. I do not think this a fair way to treat the right hon. Gentleman. He would get more sympathy from hon. Members on this side of the House.
We criticise many of the things done by this Bill. We complain of the inadequacies of this Measure, but I think it a remarkable thing that not one hon. Member of the right hon. Gentleman's party has been able to give him any praise at all for what he has done and for the arduous time he suffered during the Committee stage discussions.
We spent a very instructive time during those discussions, as I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree. We learnt about many things, including the rheumatism of the right hon. Gentleman's aunt. We learnt a good deal about sugar too, and I think that even the inarticulate hon. Members opposite who served on that Committee would now probably find that it would not be very difficult to obtain a degree in sugar at one of the minor American universities.
I would say at once that our discussions were not only instructive but in part the work was rewarding. I join with my right hon. Friends in saying that we found the Minister conciliatory. We may now say that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted an exceptional number of Amendments, some of which, as he himself has conceded, are of considerable importance and, taken together, have improved the Bill. As we are now back in the House, I think I should mention that we had the opportunity of correcting the impression created by the Parliamentary Secretary about Tate and Lyle, both the


firm and members of the family. It was conceded that they have substantial holdings in the British Sugar Corporation.
I would almost go so far as to say that the right hon. Gentleman conceded everything except the doctrinaire prejudices of his back benchers who have rewarded him so badly. Apart from those prejudices, the right hon. Gentleman went a long way to meet many of the points we raised during the discussions in Committee. It is therefore with great regret that we now find that we must continue to oppose the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to follow his common sense; has not been able to recognise the realities and has felt bound to appease the inarticulate members of his party and their doctrinaire prejudices.
As has been said, time after time, we face a position which is governed by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. During the Second Reading debate the Minister quoted with approbation the special correspondent of The Times, who said that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was undoubtedly the most successful experiment Great Britain has ever made. I think that rather undue praise for this particular aspect of the work of the Labour Government. But I share with the right hon. Gentleman an appreciation of the importance of this bulk purchase Agreement. It is a State-to-State agreement, and it is because we recognise the importance of this Agreement that we can no longer talk airily about a free market in sugar. Time after time, the right hon. Gentleman told us that he accepts and welcomes the present situation. To face it he embarked on a new venture. We on this side of the House admire his courage. To face it the right hon. Gentleman decided to take the principle of nationalisation into commerce. He decided to create a nationalised board trading in sugar.
In the Bill the Minister sets up a State-trading organisation to deal with sugar. Our complaint is that having been so bold, having shown such initiative, he panicked. He should not then have run away crying to his doctrinaire supporters, "All I am doing is setting up an accounting agency." He recognised the impossibility of a free market. He took a bold step and he should have persevered in his realism. The difficulty

was, and I have mentioned this repeatedly, that his back benchers prevented him from achieving his purpose.
The dilemma that faces the Government is that not only is the import of sugar governed by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, but the production of sugar beet sugar is bound and governed by the guaranteed price. It is those two factors which make it nonsense any longer to talk of a free market in sugar, but too many of the people behind the right hon. Gentleman believe that the first and essential virtue is to seek unrestrained profit on a free market. What has upset the right hon. Gentleman's plans is that he has tried to provide the middle man with as unrestrained a profit as he could provide in circumstances where the middle man no longer plays a proper function.
We therefore have the worst of both worlds. We do not have a free market. On the contrary we have an avoidable rigidity of bureaucratic controls. It is for this reason that the right hon. Gentleman has suffered a boycott on Standing Committee and Third Reading. We have price controls, allocations, import and export controls, agreements in restraint of trade and all sorts of supervisory powers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said, we have a Bill peppered with penalties.
All these powers are negative. Not one is positive, and they are all bound to cause unnecessary frustration and vexation. Apparently those who advise the right hon. Gentleman believed that what was necessary was a nationalised Board comprised of persons with commercial ability and seized with the purpose of protecting the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and British sugar beet production. Instead, we have an accountancy agency which will be reinforced with a battery of accountants and calculating machines and which will be unnecessarily circumscribed and we place limitations on the power of the Sugar Board to set about its task of implementing and safeguarding the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. All that we needed was a responsible State-trading body.
What is true of the Sugar Board is equally true of the British Sugar Corporation. I join with the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and hon. Friends in paying tribute to the achievements of


the British Sugar Corporation. I pay tribute to the Corporation's efficiency. In fact, I set the initiative in this regard on Second Reading, for I felt that the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat inhibited in paying tribute to a body which is essentially a nationalised corporation. Again, if we so pay tribute to the Corporation, why not recognise the reality and transform it into a proper public utility performing an essential national service and implementing, just as the Sugar Board should implement the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, the guarantee to the British sugar beet producers?
Once again, the right hon. Gentleman has not taken advantage of his opportunity. He has preserved the anomaly of private capital, which, the Parliamentary Secretary must now concede, is substantially the capital of Tate and Lyle and of the Tate and Lyle families and other sugar refiners. Solely because the right hon. Gentleman continues that anomaly, he must continue the unnecessary and complicated supervisory arrangements and all the vexatious bureaucracy, which is necessary because we have what is in effect a public corporation retaining within itself an element of private capital.
I do not complain that the right hon. Gentleman has not given me all particulars of the incentive agreement because, as he has pointed out, there will shortly be a new agreement and we will see the particulars of that agreement; but we have all these arrangements, which, as far as I can see, are devoted only to the purpose of ensuring that the shareholders shall have reasonable profits in perpetuity. Any sensible person would concede that that is the purpose of the incentive arrangements.
Turning to the refiners, we have got it admitted now without dubiety that the whole of the domestic market is carved up and that we have complete market-sharing arrangements, so complete that we have to provide an express provision allowing the agreement in restraint of trade and, as all who followed our proceedings in Standing Committee are bound now to agree, a monopoly which is backed by the State and depends upon State intervention and support.
I want to say a word about consumers. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman went a little way to meet us but he did not go by any means far enough. We pressed him to accept as part of the Bill provision for consumer consultation, but we did not get it. We got a little—the Bill is better than it was before—but we did not get consultation. Quite apart from our general criticism of a monopoly reinforced by State support, we are disappointed that in such circumstances as these, recognised as such on all sides of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman could not provide expressly and explicitly for direct consumer consultation.
Our further fundamental criticism of the Bill as it now appears before us is of the way in which price support both of the Commonwealth sugar producer and of the home beet producer is provided by a poll tax on every consumer. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree—we had correspondence about it—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the price of Commonwealth sugar under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement contains a substantial element for colonial welfare and improvement. He will also agree—this is a matter which we also discussed—that as far as the guaranteed price for British sugar beet goes that, again, contains an element, although we cannot specify the extent of the element, provided on the assumption that this industry must be supported on national and particularly strategic grounds.
It seems to us that in this Bill the Government are pursuing a course which they have pursued in regard to other foodstuffs—to remove those elements of support which ought properly to be borne by the taxpayer and to place them on the consumer. We regard this as grossly unfair. We do not think it right and proper to relieve Surtax payers at the expense of the housewife, because this is what this means.
In this, the Government are pursuing the same course as they followed recently in reducing the bread and milk subsidies. Apart from the merits of the case, I should have thought that this was the last


occasion on which to do it. If we are to give support for colonial welfare and for British sugar-beet production on strategic grounds, then that support ought to be fairly and properly borne by the taxpayer. But what the Minister is doing is to use this occasion, as he has used other occasions, to see that the support is paid across the grocer's counter.
We object to that. In the first place, we think that this element of support ought to be identifiable, that we ought to know what contribution we are making to the improvement of affairs in the Colonies and to sugar-beet production. We believe that not only should we know the extent of the support, but that, knowing it, it should be fairly borne by the taxpayer. We oppose any such step as has been taken under this Bill to transfer this burden to the housewife.
It is with some regret, having acknowledged to some degree the conciliatory attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, that for these reasons we must disappoint him and continue to oppose the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman set out with good intentions, but was diverted by those who put private interest before national interest. It is unfortunate that, having taken such a bold step, the right hon. Gentleman had not the courage to carry it out to its logical conclusions.
It is regrettable that as a consequence of that the right hon. Gentleman, whatever he may say, has caused apprehension concerning the intentions of the Government and concerning Commonwealth sugar production. He has done that because he has weakened the structure upon which the price support of Commonwealth sugar depended. It is unfortunate that at home he has not taken the opportunity—I should have thought that he could have satisfied some of his hon. Friends about this—of ridding us of a good deal of bureaucracy which is avoidable and which arises simply because there is an element of private capital in the British Sugar Corporation.
It is unfortunate, in the context of our difficulties today, that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government are taking this opportunity, as they take every other opportunity, to transfer burdens—in this case the support of the Commonwealth and of British sugar production—from the taxpayer to the housewife as

she shops. The right hon. Gentleman has missed the opportunity of presenting the House with a very good Bill. Instead, he has presented us with a Bill that, according to his own confession, he hopes will not attain its purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman does not want a vigorous, enterprising Sugar Board, but a bunch of accountants making calculations. He wants a British Sugar Corporation that will continue to represent the interests of Messrs. Tate & Lyle. It is too late to expect repentance. It is hoping too much from the Parliamentary Secretary. However, when the Bill is considered in another place, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will show a little more courage and will follow the dictates of his own common sense.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. H. Nicholls: I am so sorry that the nerves of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) would not stand up to the strain. When his right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) spoke at the beginning of the Third Reading he said that the Opposition had not made up their minds how they would vote; they would wait to hear what I had to say and would judge on that whether to vote against the Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman could not stand the strain. I still hope, after what was said by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), that we may get them to change their minds over the next half hour or so. [HON. MEMBERS: "A quarter of an hour."] I am prepared to settle for five and twenty minutes.
At the end of the Third Reading of the Bill, which has had a very long journey, one ought to pay tribute to the way in which the Standing Committee worked and to what was done on Report. Although the Committee went through sixteen long sittings and dealt with many controversial points, it did so with a good humour that was a tribute to the Parliamentary system. It was gratifying, when we came to the Third Reading, to find that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to pay similar tributes.
I was delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). The first half of his speech showed him to be quite gratified at what we have done. It was very much


in keeping with the public-house sign I saw when I went to visit the British Sugar Corporation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That was "The Happy Farmer." He reflected that in a much greater measure on Third Reading than he did in the Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not object if I say that the next door pub is known as "The Honest Lawyer." If one is correct it is possible that the other is too.

Mr. Dye: Both of them are in King's Lynn, and not in my constituency.

Mr. Nicholls: They are near enough for the hon. Gentleman to share their pleasures.
I ought to pay tribute also to hon. Members on our side of the House who sat through Committee stage. Those of us who know the problems and workings of the business of this House are aware that one of the hardest and most unsatisfying jobs is to sit through a Committee stage and listen to lots of criticism from the Opposition benches but remain quiet, because we know that that is the way to assist the progress of business. [Laughter.] We all know that, and there is no need for us to be two-faced about it on the occasion. I should like to thank my hon. Friends for the tolerance and patience they have shown. I think it is fair to admit that when they did on rare occasions make their contributions they were well worthy of attention.
I think that I ought to put another matter right. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham in speaking on the Third Reading, suggested that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office was not in attendance in the Committee. While it was perfectly true that my hon. Friend had to help support two other Committees on the corridor, he only missed one meeting of the Committee. I am sure that when we realise what the true position was, we should like to offer our thanks to him.
On the general question, there has been, as has been said, a vital clash of principles. It was because hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to have something akin to nationalisation or, at any rate, to maintain more central control of this industry and commodity, that they spent so much time and put down so many Amendments in order to try to get that point of view

established. That was the principle in which they believed, and they supported it with all the vigour they could produce during the Committee stage.
We, on the other hand, believe in the greater freedom which will flow from the Bill. We believe that whoever ought to be handling the purchase of sugar, it ought not to be a Government Department. We feel that the Board, which will be a very, very good substitute, must be a superior body to handle these affairs rather than that they should remain in the hands of a Department having all the problems which go with the running of a Government.
That is why there was that great difference. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North and his friends truly believed that centralised control should continue. We did not. I am afraid that the difference of viewpoint on that great principle went much further than Clause 1, which it was thought would be the Clause which would draw all the fire on that particular subject.
The hon. Gentleman would, I am sure, want to recognise that we tried hard on points covering mere technicalities to meet him and his hon. Friends. Indeed, during the whole Committee stage, when we saw their Amendments on the Paper, and where the actual words of their Amendments did not, we thought, quite meet the technicality being raised, rather than wait for the Report stage we did put forward words which would meet the points raised or words which could be accepted and be incorporated in the Bill. I am told that that has not happened very often, whichever party has been the Government. We felt that once the principle had been settled or, at any rate, once we had agreed to differ on the vital principle behind the Bill, on technicalities that was a good way of getting this legislation in a form which would be acceptable to both sides of the House.
We were asked on many occasions by the right hon Member for Rochester and Chatham why we would not say we would look at something again, why we would not promise to look at the words and bring forward some alternative. I tried to explain that we did not want to use those words lightly; we did not want to say that we would look at something again merely in order to buy time in the


Committee. When we promised to look again at a point which had been raised, we meant to look at it and try hard to put it into words to deal with it.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit we have done that. The nine Amendments which we have had on the Paper and dealt with on Report were in fulfilment of the promise which we made to look at certain points again.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary could claim more credit than that, because he has put down two Amendments on points of mine which he persuaded his hon. Friends to vote against in Standing Committee. I do not criticise him now because we have had the benefit of them, but I think he should point that out. He is reflecting, it seems to me, upon the time which we spent in Committee. We should have saved a lot of time if, in those two instances, the Parliamentary Secretary had indicated that the Government would look at the matter again.

Mr. Nicholls: It reflects our generosity; not only did we look at the matter again where we said we would, but we did more; we considered it again after we had concluded the Committee stage. We were under no obligation to do so, but we did. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) recognises that on Report we have met Members opposite on many points on which I do not think they expected us to do so.
The first of the points raised on Third Reading was that of profit making. We have had some very critical remarks about the supposedly excessive profits, but I think that it will be understood—certainly by those who sat through the various stages of the Bill—that the profit margin allowed to the refiners is rigidly laid down. It is a margin settled after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if, after the consultation, the Chancellor does not agree, the matter comes back to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who can himself decide what the margin shall be. I therefore do not think that we can talk in terms of any excessive profits. The margin has to go through a pretty rigid test before it is allowed to be put into operation.
On the subject of making profits, the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham said that one could only make big profits—I think he said "become a millionaire"—either by depressing wages or by charging too much. I do not think—as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) reminded him—that that bears examination when one looks at the many examples that exist in this country. One cannot make a profit unless one is providing something which the people want at a price which they can pay. If they do not want it, they will not have it. If they want it but have to pay too much for it, they will not buy it. One must provide what the people want at a price that they can pay. Only when one does that does one's profit reflect the satisfaction which one brings. I therefore think that the charges of excessive profit-making do not bear further examination.
The next reference was to the composition of the Board, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman rather left the impression that the Board, because it has not—he said—many functions to carry on, would be mainly part-time. He may not have meant that but his words might have left that impression, so it should be made perfectly clear that the Board will consist partly of full-time and partly of part-time members—and we have made it clear all along that, in the opening stages at least, the chairman would be full-time.

Mr. Bottomley: The impression which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary conveyed to many of us in Committee was that it was to be mainly a part-time Board, and the emphasis has now been put on a whole-time chairman. If the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that there will be more full-time members I shall be more satisfied.

Mr. Nicholls: I refer to the point because the right hon. Gentleman left an impression—I am sure not intentionally—that did not truly reflect the facts. As I say, the chairman of the Board, certainly at the beginning, will be full-time.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Does that mean that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that there will be sufficient accountancy work to occupy him?

Mr. Nicholls: We visualise, without any doubts, that certainly in the initial stages—while the new machine is being put into gear the chairman will be whole-time.
The next question is, who should be on the Board? We have had suggestions reflecting different points of view. First, it was suggested that there should be on the Board people representative of the Commonwealth sugar producers. Then it was suggested that we should have people representing the sugar beet growers; then that we should have someone on the Board who really understood the workings of the Sugar Corporation. The final suggestion was that there should be on the Board a direct sectional representative known as the consumer representative.
We should make clear our intention. We do not want sectional representation on the Board. We do not want delegates representing the many interests involved in the growing of sugar and the turning of it into the refined commodity. We want people with business experience, with an understanding of the markets; people who understand the workings of freight and insurance, etc. We felt that to have sectional-interest representatives would be to create more problems, and that ultimately we should not have had a Board—

Mr. Bottomley: In considering the businessmen representatives on the Board, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Co-operative movement, as such, should provide one, having in mind its great business interests and experience?

Mr. Nicholls: It was suggested that the Co-operatives should be there representing the consumers, but I do not feel that we ought to have anyone there as a delegate, as a sectional representative. There should be people representing the real business interests that will be involved.
We shall have to pay a good deal of attention to the consumer. Whatever interests are or are not represented on this Board, there is no doubt that the consumer representative will be there. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would have been perfectly satisfied that whatever interests may not be represented on

the Board, the consumer representative will be there.
Another point which has been stressed from the Opposition benches is that the effect of this Bill will be to increase the price of sugar to the consumer. It has been suggested that the machinery which will grow out of this Bill will result in the consumer paying more over the counter. I must repeat the point that has been emphasised time and again in Committee: no difference will be made to the price of sugar to the consumer. At the moment, the purchasing is done by my right hon. Friend and his Department, and they, according to the cost that they have to pay, average out what the price of sugar will be to the consumer. Alongside the Customs and Excise officers, this averaging will be done by the Board by means of the surcharge instead of being carried out by the Department, but it will make no difference at all to the price paid by the consumer. The price will be just the same.

Mr. Willey: Could the hon. Gentleman say that there will not be an increase in the price of sugar say, for the next twelve months?

Mr. Nicholls: What I am saying is that so far as the price is concerned, it will make no difference at all whether we continue to do it through the Department striking an average, or whether we make use of the new machinery which will be set up as a consequence of the Bill. That ought to be made clear, because the speeches of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North on many occasions have left a completely different impression.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham asked the specific question, what would be the result of the extra cost on sugar arising out of the Price Review. It is true that if that involved a large amount of extra money that could put up the price of sugar in the end, but that would be no different from what the price would be if we carried on as we are doing now; and I would say at once that we do not envisage that it will do so in this instance. If the cost of sugar beet, arising from the Price Review, had gone up very much higher, it would have shown itself at the end of the day. That is not likely to happen.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether or not the Price Review result could affect the price of sugar. It could, but it will not. The important point so far as this legislation is concerned is that it makes no difference at all whether the Department or this machine is deciding the matter. It would have precisely the same result.
The other point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the question of current marketing agreements. I can give him satisfaction on one point. He complained that he had not had an opportunity of seeing what was in the current marketing agreements because they had not been available. I can tell him that the information has been available from 1953. It has been in the Library of the House. I know that that is one good reason why he should abstain from voting against the Bill, for that is the point upon which he wanted satisfaction. The new agreements will be made available soon, as indeed his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North stated when he was making his final speech.
There is one matter with which I should deal by reading a paragraph to the House, because it answers the criticism which has been made that the British Sugar Corporation is not allowed to sell cube sugar, that it has been inhibited in some way from entering into the sugar market. That is not true and perhaps if I read this paragraph it will make the position perfectly clear:
Tate and Lyle undertake so long as the Corporation's present policy of not manufacturing cube sugar shall continue to sell to the Corporation such quantities of cube sugar as the Corporation shall require and to deliver the same to such places as shall be agreed between the contracting parties at prices which will enable the Corporation to market cube sugar upon terms equivalent to those upon which Tate and Lyle may be marketing cube sugar at the material time.
The right hon. Gentleman will see that there are two points arising out of that which really answer his questions. The first is that, under the present arrangements, where the Corporation's own policy is not to manufacture cube sugar, it is certainly at no disadvantage as compared with Tate and Lyle. The undertaking is that the Corporation shall be put in possession of cube sugar from Tate and Lyle which will leave it in precisely the same position as that company when it comes to market.

Mr. Willey: That is only a reference to the present policy of the British Sugar Corporation. Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that there are no understandings apart from this agreement?

Mr. Nicholls: I was coming to that point.
I was saying that the Corporation's present policy is that of not manufacturing cube sugar. It is clear that if the Corporation wanted to change its policy, it could manufacture its own cube sugar, and I should have said, reading this paragraph, that the fact that the British Sugar Corporation has not changed its policy so far and, so far as I know, has not given any indication that it will do so, is because it is finding that the arrangement under the paragraph which I have read is satisfactory to it.

Mr. Willey: The point which I put to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was whether he could say quite categorically that there are no understandings apart from the agreement to which he has referred.

Mr. Nicholls: I can give a clear assurance that I know of no hidden agreement that would in any way prevent the British Sugar Corporation from altering its policy if it so desired.
The Commonwealth Agreement has again come under violent attack.

Mr. Dye: No.

Mr. Nicholls: The results that can flow from the working of the present Agreement have come under violent attack from the benches opposite. It has been very interesting that from the beginning right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried to give the impression that the interests of the Commonwealth are safe only when they have charge of the Government of this country. They have tried to suggest that Commonwealth agreements are not as safe under the control of this Government as they are under their Government. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Quite apart from the words which have been used, it is quite clear that we intend to support and go on supporting this Agreement because every time it has been reviewed we have extended the period of the Agreement by an extra year.
These actions speak much louder than the words used by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have said the sort of thing that they would do and made promises about putting into effect certain things, but during the last four years we have extended the period of that Agreement by a year every time we have met. That has been very well recognised by the Commonwealth. That is why the Secretary of State for the Colonies was able to attend the Standing Committee and assure the Committee that the Commonwealth had raised no points on this Bill, had shown no apprehensions and had recognised that if we kept to the terms of the Bill as put in before us there would not be any problems so far as the Commonwealth is concerned.
We had the suggestion at one stage that the British Sugar Corporation was also receiving scurvy treatment as a result of the Bill. I think that it is generally accepted now, certainly by those who have followed the proceedings so far, that the British Sugar Corporation's position will be exactly the same under the Bill as it was before. We have placed on record our recognition of the improvement which has been brought about over the last ten to fifteen years, and the great efficiency of the Corporation as it exists today. It was certainly not our intention, and it is not the intention as reflected in the Bill, in any way to weaken the position.
When we were talking about the composition of the Board, the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) said that he hoped that it would reach a high standard, that it would be of the highest possible repute, and that it would consist of men of the highest possible ability and honesty. I can assure him that unless its members have those qualifications, we are not likely to accept them. We are well satisfied that we shall have available men with the reputation, ability and general standing who will really do justice to the work which we shall place upon them. It ought to be remembered that the Board will be composed only after consultation with the chairman, who will, of course, be appointed first.
Having dealt with the specific points raised during the debate, I think it is as

well for us to remember in the last words what the primary objectives of the Bill are.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Famous last words.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. and learned Gentleman was with us for only a short time at the beginning of the debate, and I listened with great interest to what he had to say, and paid a tribute to him after he had said it. I think he ought now to let me reiterate the primary objectives of the Bill.
The primary objectives are to restore private trading in sugar, to maintain the Government's obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and to continue the obligations that we had under the 1947 Act towards the beet growers. These objectives are interdependent in that the extent of the restoration of private trading is limited only by our commitments to the Commonwealth and the 1947 Act. That is as far as we go.
The method that we have chosen is to set up the Sugar Board, consisting of a chairman and a number of members not exceeding four. It is this machine that we think will be able to give effect to all the ideas that we have placed upon the records during the various stages of the Bill. We are perfectly satisfied that as a result of all of this we shall find that the marketing of sugar and dealing with sugar from its purchase in the Colonies or its development through our own factories and Corporation will be carried out more efficiently. We believe it to be better to put it in the hands of this Board of independent people rather than submit it to all the bureaucracy which is inherent in any Government Department.
If the Third Reading is unopposed, we shall feel so much the happier. Even if we have to obtain the Bill by means of our majority in the Lobby, we are satisfied that the ultimate results will justify our efforts in preparing the Bill and persuading the House to accept it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 156.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
[7.24 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Deer, G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Anderson, Frank
Dodds, N. N.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Awbery, S. S.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dye, S.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bartley, P.
Edelman, M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Benson, G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kenyon, C.


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington S.W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
King, Dr. H. M.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, G. M.


Boyd, T. C.
Finch, H. J.
Ledger, R. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brockway, A. F.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lewis, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gibson, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Gooch, E. G.
Logan, D. G.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Greenwood, Anthony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Burke, W. A.
Grey, C. F.
MacColl, J. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.


Callaghan, L. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
McGovern, J.


Carmichael, J.
Hastings, S.
McInnes, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hayman, F. H.
McLeavy, Frank


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hobson, C. R.
Mahon, Simon


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Douglas
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mayhew, C. P.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mellish, R. J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mitchison, G. R.




Moody, A. S.
Rhodes, H.
Watkins, T. E.


Moss, R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Oliver, G. H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Oswald, T.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
West, D. G.


Owen, W. J.
Ross, William
Wheeldon, W. E.


Padley, W. E.
Short, E. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Paget, R. T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilkins, W. A.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Skeffington, A. M.
Willey, Frederick


Palmer, A. M. F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Parker, J.
Steele, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Paton, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Pearson, A.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Peart, T. F.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Popplewell, E.
Swingler, S. T.
Woof, R. E.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Randall, H. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Rankin, John
Turner-Samuels, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Redhead, E. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.


Reeves, J.
Warbey, W. N.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legge-Bourge, Maj. E. A. H.


Aitken, W. T.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Alport, C. J. M.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Glover, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Godber, J. B.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Atkins, H. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gower, H. R.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Balniel, Lord
Green, A.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Banks, Col. C.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Barber, Anthony
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Barlow, Sir John
Gurden, Harold
McKibbin, A. J.


Barter, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Madden, Martin


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bidgood, J. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Body, R. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mathew, R.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mawby, R. L.


Bryan, P.
Holt, A. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hope, Lord John
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Burden, F. F. A.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Moore, Sir Thomas


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Carr, Robert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Neave, Airey


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar


Cole, Norman
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hunt, A. R.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Cunningham, Knox
Hyde, Montgomery
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Osborne, C.


Dance, J. C. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, R. G.


Davidson, Viscountess
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Partridge, E.


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitman, I. J.


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Pott, H. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Powell, J. Enoch


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Kaberry, D.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Duthie, W. S.
Keegan, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kerr, H. W.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kershaw, J. A.
Rawlinson, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, P. M.
Redmayne, M,


Fell, A.
Lagden, G. W.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Finlay, Graeme
Lambert, Hon. G.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount
Roper, Sir Harold


Foster, John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, R. S.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Leavey, J. A.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Freeth, D. K.
Leburn, W. G.
Sharples, R. C.







Shepherd, William
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Soames, Capt. C.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Touche, Sir Gordon
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Storey, S.
Vickers, Miss J. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vosper, D. F.
Woollam, John Victor


Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)



Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wall, Major Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Mr. Studholme and




Colonel J. H. Harrison.

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[9.44 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholls, Harmar


Aitken, W. T.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Alport, C. J. M.
Gurden, Harold
Nicolson, N. (B'n'mth, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat(Tiverton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Armstrong, C. W.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nugent, C. R. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Oakshott, H. D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Osborne, C.


Barber, Anthony
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Partridge, E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hope, Lord John
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pott, H. P.


Bishop, F. P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Body, R. F.
Hurd, A. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hyde, Montgomery
Redmayne, M.


Bryan, P.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robertson, Sir David


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roper, Sir Harold


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, R. S.


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Sharples, R. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keegan, D.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crouch, R. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, J. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Storey, S.


Dance, J. C. G.
Lagden, G. W.
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leburn, W. G.
Thompson, Lt.-Com. R. (Croydon, S.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drayson, G. B.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Vosper, D. F.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wall, Major Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
McKibbin, A. J.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Foster, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maddan, Martin
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Freeth, D. K.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


George, J. C.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Godber, J. B.
Marshall, Douglas
Woollam, John Victor


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Mathew, R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gower, H. R.
Mawby, R. L.



Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Mr. Studholme and


Green, A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Mr. E. Wakefield.


Gresham, Cooke R.
Neave, Airey





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Boardman, H.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Carmichael, J.


Anderson, Frank
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Brockway, A. F.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Bartley, P.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Benson, G.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Blyton, W. R.
Burke, W. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.







Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Randall, H. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rankin, John


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Redhead, Edward Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Deer, G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Short, E. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
King, Dr. H. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dye, S.
Lawson, G. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Edelman, M.
Ledger, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur
Steele, T.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stephney)
Logan, D. G.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacColl, J. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Fernyhough, E.
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S. T.


Finch, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fletcher, Eric
Mclnnes, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McLeavy, Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gibson, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gooch, E. G.
Mahon, S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Warbey, W. N.


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hannan, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Moss, R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hobson, C. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick


Holmes, Horace
Owen, W. J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Holt, A. F.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hn. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Hunter, A. E.
Paton, J.
Woof, R. E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Irving, S. (Dartford)
Popplewell, E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jeger, George (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND)

9.53 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland) Order 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 31st January.
This matter arises entirely through the formation of the Federation. There have been in existence separate double taxation agreements between the United Kingdom and each of the three constituent Territories of Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Now that these are merged in a Federation, it would be clearly unnatural that we should continue to have separate double taxation agreements with the constituent territories.
Accordingly, after further negotiation, an agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom authorities and the Federation authorities by which, in effect, the existing double taxation agreements are merged. In so far as they are not all entirely identical, there has, of course, had to be a process of ironing out small differences, but there is nothing here of sufficient importance for me to draw to the attention of the House, and I can ask the House to approve the Motion with the assurance that it is in essence an act of consolidation.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: We are all in general agreement that the idea of double taxation is not altogether satisfactory and perhaps we may look for a moment at the effect of this Order. I think I am right in assuming that in the main it affects United Kingdom companies moving to the Federation. Since 1953 a number of companies have moved, including the Rhodesia Selection Trust, The Anglo-American Trust and the Wankie


Colliery Co. These companies have moved in order to obtain the benefit of lower taxation. Taxes in the Federation are considerably lower than in this country.
As I understand it the main reason why the taxes are lower is because in the Federation they do not pay very much for defence; most of that cost is borne in this country on their behalf. They pay scarcely anything at all for social services and those two things—defence and social services—are the main items for which companies in this country have to pay by way of taxation. I wish to ask whether representation may be made to those companies in the Federation that to some small extent they should increase the low wages which they now -pay, for example £2 10s. a week to miners for work underground—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going far beyond the bounds of this Order which deals only with the relevant double taxation. No question of wages arises in it, nor does it bring into account the financial policy of the territories mentioned.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: With respect, Mr. Speaker, when considering whether approval should be given to this Order surely the House is entitled to consider how it works out and what will be the effect in relation to companies which may be trading both in this country and in Rhodesia? Surely the House is entitled to consider whether it is advantageous for a company to move its business from this country to Rhodesia and to see how this Order will operate with regard to the internal affairs and expenses of those companies?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is mistaken. The scope of the Order is not as wide as that. I see no reference to wages in it and I do not think they may be discussed under this Order.

Mr. Dugdale: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your Ruling, and I will not go further into the question of wages. I have already said that they are exceedingly low and I now have it on record as to how low they are in one industry.
I wish to mention only one other point which has no connection with wages. I desire to refer to Article XI which states:

The remuneration derived by a professor or teacher who is ordinarily resident in one of the territories, for teaching, during a period of temporary residence not exceeding two years, at a university, college, school or other educational institution in the other territory, shall be exempt from tax in that other territory.
The word "university" may be unnecessary in this case. At present there is no university. There may be one university in the future and it is a university to which I hope no English professor will go at any time if the reports that it is to be a colour-bar university are correct. I understand that that is so and that in fact there will be separate dining halls and separate houses for all the students. If that is so, no professor will go from this country, and it will therefore be unnecessary to mention "university" in this case. I hope that these reports are wrong and that there will be no colour bar.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is extending discussion on the Order well beyond its limits and he ought to know that. I cannot sit here and listen to the Rules of the House being disregarded like that.

Mr. Dugdale: I will say in conclusion only that I hope that we can be assured that these reports are wrong and that we may retain the word "university." If they are correct, at a later stage I shall move to delete the word "university."

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Financial Secretary referred to the differences between this consolidated Order and the three previous Orders with the separate territories of which it takes the place. Is this just a difference of drafting and things of that sort with no substance in the differences? I must frankly admit that I have not given myself the trouble of going through all the previous Orders, because it is very tricky to read them in detail and remember how one differs from another. I hope that I can have an assurance about that.
The Order is made retrospective to 1st April, 1953. The Explanatory Note says that this is an Agreement which:
…will supersede the existing Agreement and Arrangements with the constituent territories, is expressed to take effect from 1st April 1953 …


That is an ingenious way of saying that the Order is made retrospective to 1st April, 1953. That is a big hop back to the past.
Was it necessary to delay so much that one has now to pass extremely retrospective legislation, covering the better part of three years? It may be that it was very difficult and took a great deal of time to work out. It may be that it involved the labours of many civil servants and has taken three years to carry out. On the other hand, it may be that nobody thought of doing this until later than they should have thought of doing it.
There is a possible point of substance about which I should like an assurance and it is whether we are really wise to destroy the Orders with the three separate territories. I am not sure whether it is wise, given the constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, to have terminated the previous double taxation agreements with the three territories. Article 82 of the Constitution made by Order in Council in 1953 says in effect that the legislature of one of the three territories with whom we will have double taxation agreements after this Order comes into effect
may, subject to the provisions of this Article, authorise the Federal Government to levy and collect on behalf of that Territory a tax …
upon income.
In other words, there is something called a Territorial surcharge which turns out to be Income Tax which the individual territory can authorise the Federal Government to collect on its behalf. Even in the terms of Article 82 it is doubtful whether it is Income Tax levied by the Territory or by the Federal Government. In the list of concurrent powers in paragraph 76 of the Second Schedule where there are covered the things of which nobody thought of before we find:
Any other matter whether or not"—
referred to by the Constitution—
both the Federal Legislature and the Legislature of the Territory have for the time being power to make laws, or in relation to which reference is made in this Constitution to laws both of the Federal Legislature and of the Legislature of a Territory.
Unquestionably, Article 82, which I have mentioned, refers to the law of territory. I would have thought, therefore, that it gave power to a territorial

Government to authorise the Federal Government to levy a tax which comes in the concurrent list and not in the exclusive list, and that therefore it might be wiser to pass only the first of the two Orders, which I concede is necessary—there is a new Government in being and we must have a double taxation agreement with it—but that it might not be wise to pass the second Order, which would obliterate and bring to an end our three existing double taxation agreements with the three territories.
If there is any risk whatever of a lawyers' paradise appearing and the taxpayers getting into a terrible state later on, I cannot see what we should gain by abrogating the double taxation agreement with the three territories other than a little neatness. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that we may be running into a certain amount of danger which could be obviated by passing only the first of these Orders and not the second and that it would be wiser to be prudent rather than neat.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: We are entitled to a little more information from the Financial Secretary before we approve the Order. I am encouraged to say that because of the derisory remarks from the benches opposite which greeted some of the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale).
I should like the Financial Secretary kindly to explain the very odd provisions of Article IX. It is not obvious to me, and I doubt whether it is obvious to anybody in the House, why we should be asked to discriminate, as this Order does, between individuals of different kinds who earn their living in the territory. Article IX provides in paragraph (2) that
An individual who is a resident of the Federation shall be exempt from the United Kingdom tax on profits or remuneration in respect of personal (including professional) services performed within the United Kingdom in any year of assessment 
if he is living in the territories for a certain time. But then there is a curious exception, which states:
The provisions of this Article shall not apply to the profits or remuneration of public entertainers such as stage, motion picture or radio artists, musicians and athletes.


We have had no explanation whatever from the Financial Secretary of this curious discrimination against
stage, motion picture or radio artists, musicians and athletes.
What, for example, have athletes done which causes them to be the subject of this seemingly unjustifiable discrimination? Is it not the policy of the Government to encourage athletics in the territory and a proper exchange of athletic talent between one country and another? I should have thought that in the best interests of relations between the United Kingdom and Rhodesia, this was a very undesirable provision. Is it something new, or is it repeated from the Orders which the present Order supersedes?
The Financial Secretary told us that although the Order was in the nature of a consolidation Order, it contained a number of changes and modifications of the old law, but he did not condescend to explain, as he should have done, what the changes were. This is one matter which came to my notice when I was reading the Order.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich said, we are all concerned with education, not only in this country but in all parts of the Commonwealth. Article XII, while it appears desirables in itself, is worthy of much fuller justification by the Financial Secretary than we have yet had. I do not quite follow its precise purport. It says:
A student or business apprentice from one of the territories who is receiving full-time education or training in the other territory shall be exempt from tax in that other territory on payments made to him by persons in the first-mentioned territory for the purposes of his maintenance, education or training.
As my right hon. Friend said, and as you will be aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, there is a very considerable grant from the United Kingdom, through the Colonial Development Fund, of about £1¼ million for educational purposes, particularly university purposes, in these territories. We all want to encourage that, but some of us have doubts whether the amount being allocated is sufficient.

Mr. George Thomas: Hear, hear.

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) agrees with me.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will say what exactly is the impact of this Double Taxation Relief Order on the educational grants which we are making to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Is this Article designed, as it appears to be, to encourage education in these territories? If so, may we have an assurance that the purpose to which this grant is devoted and the relief which is being given are such as to ensure that there is no colour discrimination in the territories? It would be most unfortunate if the effect, directly or indirectly, of this Order were to encourage—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is now going beyond the scope of the Order.

Mr. Fletcher: I am very anxious not to go beyond the scope of the Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. All that I was hoping to do was to get some elucidation from the Government, especially from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whom we all know takes a very great interest in educational matters. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious, before the House parts with the Order, to give us the fullest information he can to justify this unusual relief from taxation provided in Articles XI and XII not only for students enjoying education in these territories, but, under Article XI, for teachers, some of whom, presumably, go from this country to Rhodesia for the purpose of trying to raise the standard of education there.
I am not at all satisfied either that the provisions of Article XI are adequate for the purpose or that they will be applied in the way in which we all desire, namely, to give the broadest education in these territories without discrimination of any kind in the way with which we are familiar in this country. After all, it has been a principle of education in the United Kingdom that it should be available without discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, creed or sex.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now repeating what I objected to earlier.

Mr. Fletcher: I am anxious to keep within the bounds of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The whole purpose of my inquiry is to receive some assurance that in relieving university professors and


students from United Kingdom Income Tax in order that educational facilities may be developed in these Commonwealth Territories the same principle will be observed. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give a categorical assurance on that matter before we approve the Order.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: The Inland Revenue knows nothing of colour except the colour of a man's money. It is certainly not for me to pronounce on this Order about matters of administration or on colour bar in the Federation, or in any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions. My business is to commend to the House an Agreement that has been negotiated between two Governments, which is, as I explained, virtually a consolidation of three previous Agreements and is on similar lines to Agreements which the House has constantly approved, I am glad to say, without a Division, when they have been reached between the United Kingdom and other countries.

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Inland Revenue knows nothing about colour bars or subjects of that kind. May I ask why there is no representative here from the Commonwealth Relations Office, who might know something about it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That matter does not arise on this Order.

Mr. Brooke: This is a double taxation agreement. I am answering points raised by a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is based on a draft model agreement which was drawn up by the Fiscal Committee of the League of Nations. So were the three original Agreements which are now being superseded. I can therefore assure the House that there is nothing curious or unusual in any of these provisions. They are not something which has been thought up for private British purposes, or in relation to a particular question that might arise as between Britain and the Federation. We are simply seeking to give people who are resident in one of these countries and derive some of their income from another the ordinary relief from double taxation which it has been British policy, under a succession of Governments of different colours, to seek to secure throughout the world.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) spoke about Articles XI and XII, both of which are in common form. They are designed to prevent the exchange of students and teachers being interfered with through the fear that a man or woman who thus travels to another educational institution may be damnified thereby, by coming under double taxation and suffering while obviously endeavouring to perform a public service.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) questioned whether the previous Agreements ought to be repealed. I can assure him that this has not been done lightly, and that these matters have been thoroughly investigated by those who are negotiating. I should point out that this is one Order and not two Orders, to confirm two Agreements which were reached at the same time. In fact, both the main Agreement and the supplemental Agreement were signed on 25th November of last year. This Order was, in accordance with the Act, laid before the House on 31st January, 1956. It requires an affirmative Resolution of the House to bring it into force.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why it was being back-dated so far. The answer is that it was on 1st April, 1953, that the Federal Income Tax system came into force in the Federation. As this whole Agreement arises out of the merging of the three Territories into the Federation, it is convenient that the new Double Taxation Agreement with the Federation should operate from the date when the Federal Income Tax system came into force.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I was not questioning whether it was wise to have the date starting then, but wondering why it has taken such a long time to get the Agreement started. If we had done it six months after the Federation came into being that would have been only six-month retrospective legislation. This is three-year retrospective legislation. It is rather alarming.

Mr. Brooke: I must point out that this is not a question of the date of Federation but of the date of the Federal income tax system coming into operation. I am rather glad we have now a double


taxation agreement, having myself some experience of the immense length of time sometimes occupied in negotiations when we are seeking these agreements with countries outside the Commonwealth.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick asked whether there were any major differences which had to be ironed out. There is only one difference, I think, of any importance, namely, the treatment of Government pensions.
The House may know that there are in some of our arrangements two different ways of treating government pensions for tax purposes. Sometimes we have agreed that the foreign country should be given the exclusive right to tax pensions paid by its Government even though the pensioner is resident in the United Kingdom. In other agreements we have insisted that when the pensioner is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Government pension which he receives should be charged with tax by the United Kingdom Government and not the paying Government.
In the three agreements which we are now supplanting there were differences of treatment in that particular respect. Clearly, it was desirable to iron those out, if I may use that expression, and this Agreement now provides for what will happen in regard to those Government pensioners.
The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)—and this was a part of his speech which was clearly in order—referred to the transfer of residence of a company from one territory to another. As he will, I think, be aware, the transfer of residence of a United Kingdom company to another country is not permitted under the Income Tax Acts except with the consent of the Treasury. Therefore, if any company has recently migrated from the United Kingdom to the Federation, it can only have done so with the consent of the Treasury.
I trust I have satisfied the House that this Agreement has been reasonably drawn up and that the negotiators have thought of all the questions which might arise and have sought so to frame the Agreement that scope for ambiguity or litigation will be reduced to a minimum. The important thing here—and I revert now to the question of replacing and terminating the former agreements—is

that everybody liable to pay tax should be enabled to see exactly where he stands.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In the matter of pensions, where there has been some ironing out, would the Financial Secretary say whether any pensioner is worse off under this Order as a result of any such ironing out than he has been hitherto?

Mr. Brooke: No pensioner will be worse off, because the position of certain pensioners who might otherwise be rendered worse off is protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 31st January.

Orders of the Day — SUB-POST OFFICE, LECKWITH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]

10.25 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I wish to raise a matter of solely constituency interest. It is one of the happy features of the House that it is able to move from matters of great Commonwealth significance to matters concerning the humblest people in these islands. One of the privileges accorded to hon. Members is that, if they are fortunate enough to obtain it, they may use the Adjournment debate to raise matters which concern their constituents. The issue which I wish to raise is small by the standards of this House but important to the people concerned. I may say at once that it is a non-political question—it is a constituency matter. That is why I am able to welcome the Assistant Postmaster-General to what I believe is his first Adjournment debate.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): indicated dissent.

Mr. Thomas: In any case, I welcome him.
The small matter which I wish to raise concerns the sub-post office in Leckwith, Cardiff. Small things sometimes assume great proportions in our daily life. Our post office, the regular supply of milk, the daily callers at our home, all play an important part in our family life. The Leckwith community in Cardiff is quite separate, by topography, from the rest of the constituency. When we enter, under what I call Leckwith Bridge, the council house estate which is neatly divided into two parts, we come to a well-planned estate of decent, thrifty people.
This is not an estate given to complaining. It is normally the sort of happy community which is the dream of any Member of Parliament. In the past decade I can recall only one major upset in that community, and that was when it suffered the havoc of flooding. Since we were able to have steps taken to put that matter right there has been no further disturbance, but these people—whom I present to the Minister and to the House

as reasonable, decent people—feel that they have had scurvy treatment from the Post Office, and I wish briefly to outline the circumstances.
Due to the unfortunate death of the sub-postmaster at Leckwith, his widow, Mrs. Williams, decided to sell the business and retire. She acted honourably towards the Post Office. Indeed, before she advertised the sale of her business she notified the Post Office that she intended to sell out. I think everyone agrees that she played an honourable part. For many years that post office has worked admirably and has well suited the people of the area. Once the Department was notified that the business was for sale its machine went into operation. The vacancy was advertised, and here we meet with our difficulty.
I understand that an agreement was reached with the new sub-postmaster. Of him I have no complaint at all to make I am quite sure that he is equally as honourable and useful a citizen as the others have been, but he was given the appointment despite the fact that Mr. Coles, who took over the business, applied for the right to be sub-postmaster: I understand that he was a day late in making the application. It is here, I feel, that the Post Office authorities have been pernickety, if I may use a word which expresses exactly how I feel. They have been too closely tied to rules, and have failed to consider as adequately as they might the public considerations concerned.
They gave the post office to people whose quarters are adjoining the most dangerous road junction, in one of the main suburbs of Cardiff—a junction of five roads. I am told that the new post office is forty yards away from the traffic lights of these five roads. While I must accept the arithmetic of the hon. Gentleman's Department, I must say that I think that those concerned there must have taken their tape from the traffic lights down the road and behind the counter to reach the furthest point where the postmaster was standing.
It so happens that that sub-post office is placed at the narrowest part of Leckwith Road. The last thing I did before leaving my constituency on Monday was to go there and have a last look at it. I realised that with cars pulling up outside that sub-post office a very dangerous


position is created near to the traffic lights. The original sub-post office was on the fringe of what I term the lower Leckwith estate, and people already had a long walk to get there. The extra distance involved has been estimated as half a mile; the Post Office says it is 200 yards. As a reasonable man, I rake the average and I have taken the distance as a quarter of a mile. It certainly seems to be a quarter of a mile.
That extra distance is a great burden to the local pensioners. It is also an added danger to children who run errands for their parents. I have with me a list of five business concerns and factories which were using the old sub-post office in order to obtain stamps for their workers, and because of the large amount of money involved people were sent in cars to collect the stamps. The new post office is too near the traffic lights to allow the cars to queue up. I am not making that the main burden of my complaint, as I am sure the Assistant Postmaster-General will understand.
I did not come into this matter as the local Member until unhappily it was almost too late for anything to be done. A new sub-postmaster had been appointed. But I took the ordinary steps which every hon. Member of this House likes to take to protect his constituents. I approached the Minister concerned. I met with every courtesy from the Postmaster-General and from the Assistant Postmaster-General who will be replying to the debate tonight, but I am afraid that courtesy is all that I did get. I was unable to get any major concession. It would be untrue to say that I got no concession at all, because the pillar box and telephone kiosk were allowed to stay on the old site, to avoid adding to the inconvenience of the constituents.
Following my meeting with the Postmaster-General, a public meeting was held for the residents of this area, and the local postmaster was kind enough to come along. I very much appreciated the fact that the Cardiff postmaster attended that meeting of 200 residents to deal with this question. I must say that he convinced no one. I have a very great respect for him. I am very grateful to him for attending, but, so for convincing even the door boy, he failed completely.
I want to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to realise that this matter, which is off our usual track here, is one to which he ought to give a little further consideration. The Post Office acted as if it was the complete master over the community, and, so far as I could find, consulted no one at all who represents the people. I should like the Minister to say whether he thinks it right that these decisions to move post offices here and there should be taken without consulting the local authority, the people who know the area best. Leckwith is a developing area; 200 houses are being built there at present and that will add to the problem that I have raised tonight.
I make only this request to the Minister. Will he promise to review the question of this sub-post office in six months' time and let us see how the matter works out? Will he give the people of Leckwith an assurance that the Post Office is not going to be obstinate on this question? Realising the feeling of the people and the inconvenience which they have suffered, will the hon. Gentleman say that further consideration be given to this question? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that when such things are done in future there will be prior consultation with the local authority?
I am grateful to the House for being so patient about a constituency matter. I should not have raised it here if I did not know these people as well as I do. They are not unreasonable people. They want to express their warm appreciation of the services of the Post Office in the past, but as it is a public service they feel that they are entitled to more consideration than they have received. I trust that the Minister will not think that I have wantonly taken the time of the House in considering this matter, because it is the right of everyone in this country, if they are upset by a public service controlled by the House, to have the matter raised here and, if possible, put right.

10.37 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Listening to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) makes me recall that I spent a period during the late war with the Royal Welch Fusiliers, and in that time I had an opportunity of appreciating the qualities of cheerfulness and courtesy which is part of the character of the Welsh. It is


not easy to refuse a case put forward by the hon. Member, nor indeed by any of his Welsh colleagues, but I do so on this occasion because the case is, in our view, and in my view, an extremely bad one.
Perhaps the House will allow me to go over the details of the story which lies behind this case so that we can get it into perspective. It is perfectly true that Mrs. Williams, the former sub-postmistress, tendered her resignation in November last year to take effect on 22nd February this year. When the vacancy was advertised three applicants came forward. Two of them based their applications on the hope of acquiring the existing sub-office premises at 66, Leckwith Road. They were, however, unable to come to any agreement with Mrs. Williams about the purchase of her premises and, since they had no premises to offer, their applications failed.
I should perhaps explain to the House that it is a rigid rule of the Post Office that before an application for a sub-post office vacancy is considered the applicant must be in a position to offer suitable premises of which he is in the ownership or tenancy at the time of making the application. The result of all this was that the only application left open to the Post Office was that of Mr. Weller, the present sub-postmaster, an ex-Service man able to offer premises 285 yards from the original premises at 66, Leckwith Road.
The hon. Member asked why we did not consult the local authorities. We did not feel that it was necessary to consult them because we had available for consideration only one application. Thus, there was no question of an alternative application, and in order to ensure that the postal facilities for the area were maintained, we had no alternative to taking up the application made by Mr. Weller.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is it a fact—this is an important matter to the local people—that the new appointment had not been made when Mr. Coles applied for the job in the old post office, and that it was merely that he was a day late in making the application?

Mr. Alport: I shall come to that point in a moment.
I just want to make it clear that the accommodation that Mr. Weller was able

to offer us at 26, Leckwith Road was, in our view—not, admittedly, in the view of the people in Leckwith, but for the district generally; the hon. Member's constituents are not confined to the Leckwith housing estate but are spread over the whole of this area of Cardiff and a good deal further around—more convenient for a larger number of residents of the area. Secondly, the accommodation of the new office is, in our view, much better than that of the old one. Indeed, this has been commented upon by a number of those who have used the premises since they were opened.
It is true that two other gentlemen applied very late for the vacancy, one a day before the decision was made—that is the one to whom the hon. Member referred—and the other about ten days subsequently. Again, they did not have premises. They were making an application on the basis of obtaining the premises previously used at 66, Leckwith Road. We did not feel that we were justified in considering the applications, just as we had not felt justified in considering the two earlier applications, and on precisely the same grounds, that the applicants had not premises available.
I must make it clear to the House that it is a rigid and, I think, proper rule of the Post Office that it will not allow a sub-post office to be passed between two persons as part of the consideration of a conveyance of property. In this case we were not prepared to allow Mrs. Williams to sell her shop to somebody and to receive a price on the understanding that the purchaser would receive the sub-postmastership in addition. Our reason for that is that a sub-postmastership even of a small sub-post office of this sort is an important appointment from our point of view, and it is most important that the Post Office should maintain full control over appointments, and should not allow them to become, so to speak, mere objects of merchandise. Those being the circumstances, we felt that we were not able to consider Mr. Coles' application.
Let me now turn to the point raised by the hon. Member with regard to road safety. Like on so many other aspects of this case, there are two points of view on that. It is true that the new Post Office is forty yards from the junction of five roads, but the old post office was about thirty-five yards from the function


of four roads. In the case of the new Post Office, the crossing is controlled by lights, I understand, whereas the road junction near the old post office is not controlled.
We therefore consider that, on the whole, the position of the new post office from the point of view of road safety is preferable to the old one. We have made investigations, and we find that the width of the road at the new post office is greater than the width of the road at the old post office.

Mr. Thomas: It does not seem like it.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member may be arguing from impressions, but we are arguing from actual measurements taken on the ground. He will realise that although this is, as he said, a small constituency matter, the Post Office, whether it be the Cardiff Post Office or the Post Office generally, is always concerned to ensure that the facilities which it makes available to the public are so arranged as to provide the greatest possible convenience for our customers in whatever part of the country it may be.
When we are accused, as we have been accused, of high-handed action like this, we regard that seriously, and feel it is right that we should justify our position. I feel particular responsibility in this matter because the judgment at issue in this case is not so much that of the Postmaster-General as of the head postmaster at Cardiff. His part in this has been misrepresented in the local Press, and I think it is extremely hard on him. He has acted perfectly properly throughout the whole of these negotiations, and in accordance with the regulations maintained by the Post Office for dealing with this type of problem. The decision which he made was perfectly proper, taking everything into consideration.
The other person for whom I feel some special responsibility is Mr. Weller, the new sub-postmaster. It is not easy in a small neighbourhood of this sort to take on a public responsibility such as this and to provide for the satisfaction of all the customers. It is particularly difficult when one is caught up in what may be a small, but nevertheless is a vortex of political agitation. The hon. Member may say that this is not a matter of Politics, and I hope that this can be kept

out of politics locally in his constituency, as well as we are trying to keep it out of politics at Westminster.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member is dragging in politics.

Mr. Alport: If I am doing so, it is in order to warn the hon. Member that he himself has come very close to dragging in politics. Our impression is that there has been too much of politics.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member is quite unfair to the community. It does not matter if he is unfair to me, because I can look after myself. In this matter we have had concerned a leading member of the Labour Party and a leading lady who supports the party which the hon. Member adorns. He should realise that this is a community, and not a party political, matter.

Mr. Alport: I am merely making it clear that the Post Office is most anxious that these circumstances should not be considered on political lines. Indeed, it is one of the rules which we make that any attempt to bring political pressure to obtain appointments of sub-postmasters will automatically ensure that the application will not be considered.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is being quite unfair.

Mr. Alport: A great deal of local prejudice has been raised about this question. The people who have been primarily affected by it are the present sub-postmaster and the head postmaster of Cardiff. It is only right when they are subjected to political pressures of this sort—very considerable pressures, even if they have been on only a local scale—that we in this House should make their position clear. That is what I am endeavouring to do. I acquit the hon. Member of trying to bring political matters into this, but he will remember that he took the chair at a public meeting organised in his constituency about this matter. I will leave it to the House.
From the facts which have been put forward, I would say that before that sort of, not encouragement, but at least sponsorship of a case of this kind is accepted by a Member, it is important that the full facts should be available to him. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will agree that in this case the


Post Office had no alternative but to make the decision which it has made with regard to this sub-post office, and that in the interests of the community as a whole, as well as in the interests of the Post Office itself, the decision which was made was the right one.

Mr. Thomas: The Minister has been most unfortunate in his choice of words in the latter part of his speech. May I say that if he wants all the facts brought out—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must have the leave of the House if he wishes to speak again on the Motion.

Mr. Thomas: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the leave of the House? If the Minister wants all the facts brought out, he can have them. It was on the suggestion of the Postmaster-General that I asked the Cardiff postmaster to attend the meeting. I have not taken any political interest in this question. The implication of the Minister's speech was that somehow or other I had cashed in on this problem in the area.
The people came to me, in considerable indignation. If the hon. Gentleman had been briefed properly, he would know, if he had had the cuttings from the South Wales Press, that the matter had been well ventilated in the Press before I received a deputation at the weekly interviews which I hold for constituents in the City of Cardiff. I am sorry that the hon.

Gentleman has felt somehow that it was necessary for him—

Mr. Alport: I have all the cuttings from the Press, which have been collected with great care, and I have the particular cutting from the South Wales Echo, dated 22nd March, in which the hon. Member makes all the points which he has put forward here tonight.

Mr. Thomas: I have deliberately tried, both at Cardiff and here, to keep away from party politics, and it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to drag them in. Obviously, by his words tonight, he has created far more hostility in the area towards the Post Office than would have been the case otherwise.
I tried to play down feeling. No one can say that by my words tonight, which will be circulated in the area, as will those of the hon. Gentleman, I sought to inflame feeling or was unreasonable in what I said. I was deliberately as restrained as I could be, because I know the area better than the Assistant Postmaster-General does, and I know how indignant and unhappy the people feel about it. I can only say that I had hoped for something better. I had hoped that the Assistant Postmaster-General would at least give a reasonable reply and not the kind of political twaddle which he uttered at the end of his speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.